[ATrpms-users] jasper

[Phil Schaffner]

On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 14:33 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 07:58:34AM -0500, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 12:40 +0100, David Sandberg wrote: 
> > > I think it is a kde-redhat problem, but why nobody provides libjasper for
> > > fedora core?
> 
> Isn't it part of tomcat5-jasper? That's part of Fedora Core.

For Fedora X, X>= 4 AFAICT.  OP didn't say what version.  Tomcat5 seems
to be problematic on older FC (or FC3test-branched EL4 and friends).

> > Neither kde-redhat nor atrpms lists this package.
> > 
> > Karanbir Singh's (one of the CentOS developers - http://www.karan.org/)
> > Extras repo has it:
> 
> That won't help the poster, who wants it for Fedora Core, or do I miss
> something?

No. I missed saying that the kbs package would be a good starting point
for a FC rebuild (or perhaps even binary-compatible for Fedora 3).

> > Warning: I have had compatibility problems (as have others, based on
> > recent traffic on this list) between core CentOS4, centosplus, contrib,
> > kbs, RPMforge, and ATrpms packages.
> 
> ATrpms is RHEL4 compatible. I also track Scientific Linux. But I can't
> track *every* RHEL4 clone out there. It's like talking about
> compatibility issues between centos', sl's and whitebox's contrib
> packages.

Understood.  CentOS4 and WBEL do tend to be highly EL-compatible and I
have relatively few problems mixing CentOS-specific repos with EL4
repos.  From my (admittedly somewhat limited) look at it, SL seems to
diverge a bit more.

> Still, you can and should file such issues at bugzilla.atrpms.net and
> also the respective clone bugzilla, compatibility is a two-way
> cooperation thing.
> 
> > I choose to enable the various CentOS, kbs and RPMforge repos by
> > default and hand-pick ATrpms packages, usually with smart.  YMMV.
> 
> Please don't encourage filtering ATrpms packages. I prefer people not
> to use ATrpms at all than having bug reports and investing support
> efforts due to half installs of ATrpms packages. You know the issues,
> they look just like the centos vs atrpms yum support.

That's why I have not filed bugzilla reports on your packages when it is
obvious that conflicts come from clone/3rd-party-repo-mixing problems of
my own making, and I understand your concerns, thus the "YMMV".

Thanks for the packages.

Phil