[ATrpms-users] CentOS and Smart with ATrpms

[Philip R. Schaffner]

On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 06:19 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:01:38PM -0600, Wags wrote:
... snip ...
> > I haven't kept up to date but I recall dire warnings about messing
> > with priorities. Has this situation changed?
> 
> No, as this is not something that could be solved on a technical
> basis. No matter how smart the weighing/prioritizing/filtering etc. is
> set up it will create per host unique bugs. 

And if it breaks you get to keep all the pieces, same as if you don't
use priorities - and core packages get replaced by a 3rd party repo. :-)

Admittedly, it may be that those replaced packages are necessary to the
proper functionality of other packages from said repo[s].  I agree with
Axel that ANY mixing of repos will undoubtedly introduce bugs unique to
the mix, and the specific set of packages used on the host.

I find in general that using priorities (in both yum and smart) helps me
automate the process of managing package installation/update for the
varying sets of repos I use  on a variety of systems.  I use yum by
default and smart-gui for problematic situations.  This approach is not
perfect nor without problems, but works better for me (with a sometimes
rather large [some would say unwisely/insanely so {Wow, am I ever
feeling parenthetic today!} :-P ] set of add-on repos) than not using
priorities.  This approach does require periodic tuning of priorities
and occasional manual resolution of problems.  YMMV.

On a MythTV "dedicated" system with only ATrpms (including
atrpms-testing - seems to be required despite the somewhat misleading
name, as Axel has discussed elsewhere) enabled in addition to CentOS
repos, I do not use priorities.  If you are happy with using only ATrpms
in addition to core repos (as the Subject implies), and are OK with the
fact that core packages may be replaced, them you will likely have a
positive experience, and it is probably best NOT to use priorities.

Phil