Re: freshrpms packages w/o repoid?

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 05:25:34PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > Axel Thimm wrote :
> > 
> > > I've had a couple of bug reports by now that would claim that ATrpms
> > > has overlapping packages with Fedora Core and the examples given were
> > > faac, faad, perhaps even ffmpeg IIRC.
> > > 
> > > Of course such packages don't exist in official repos (unless US law
> > > was changed and I didn't notice ;), and it turns out that these
> > > packages are freshrpm ones, but are missing any "fr" or "rf" tags.
> > > 
> > > Is this on purpose or did the buildsystem mess this up? If it's
> > > intentional, may I ask why? It creates lots of confusion.
> > 
> > I've dropped the "fr" tag quite a long time ago, and believe it or not,
> > I have less complaints (like yours) about having introduced confusion
> 
> That's probably because all users think now that these packages are
> more official. Less is obviously more in this context. Still it
> bounces now to all other non-freshrpms repos.

Exactly, imagine what would happen if we drop the .rf. repotag, people may 
think the mplayer or xine comes from freshrpms. I'm sure we'll get less 
complaints :)

Of course, checking with rpm -q brings clarity. However yum may output 
dependency problems and not being able to see from that where something is 
coming from requires another interaction to try and see with rpm -q who's 
responsible.

It helps if people can judge from the output (filename) where to go 
to instead of ending up on the wrong forum.

Kind regards,
--   dag wieers,  [email protected],  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]