[ATrpms-users] OT: Exclude Package with Smart

[Axel Thimm]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:49:34PM -0500, John Welch wrote:
> >I'm just in a thread on another list about why such a thing is bad
> >(selective/partial upgrading).
> >
> >Anyway if you want to lock-in your installed versions of package foo
> >you can do
> >
> >smart priority --set foo rpm-db 1000
> >
> >You can do that also from the gui.
> >
> >BTW the reason 2.0.4 is considered newer than 2.1 is because it has a
> >so called epoch of "1".
> the other experts on this list would chime in.  Unfortunately, either I
> still have the wrong syntax, or it just isn't working.  I've tried the
> following:
> smart priority --set openoffice.org\* rpm-db 1000
> smart priority --set openoffice.org-core rpm-db 1000
> smart priority --set openoffice.org-core-1 rpm-db 1000
> 
> The first was an attempt to wildcard the openoffice packages, and when that
> didn't work I thought maybe if I excluded the 'core' package it would skip
> the rest.  After each attempt I ran the 'smart upgrade --update' and each
> time it wanted me to install all the OO stuff.
> 
> A couple of other questions, if you don't mind:
> 1) Can you please point me to the thread in the other list where you discuss
> why this is bad?  I would certainly like to read your explanation.

Well, to clarify: what is really bad is to use this or similar
mechanisms for enabling half a repo. what you have in mind is less
evil ;)

> 2) I saw the "-1" at the end of each package name (didn't know it was called
> the epoch) and thought that might be the reason it wanted to install them.
> Are these packages truly newer (better, more functionality, etc.) than the
> "official" OO packages, or is this just a way to trick the system into
> keeping the Fedora packages?

No that will not be the epoch, it is usually invisible in the package
name.

The problem here is that whatever the rpms from OO are, they are
obviously not really built and tested against a Fedora system. So
maybe the OO people did their best in providing and building OO, but
not in integrating with Fedora. And that is a warning sign for me,
e.g. I wouldn't get into this adventure.

If you do want OO 2.1 and are willing to be less than safe, then try
rawhide, the upcoming F7. It will be rough around the egdes, but it
carries OO 2.1 in a fully inegrated fashion.

Alternatively you could get the src.rpm from rawhide and rebuild on
FC6. That would still be safer than using the OO rpms, but it's quite
a bit of work on your (and your PC's) shoulders.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20070124/7746ac5d/attachment.bin