Mailing List Archive: Understanding the relationship of atrpms and atrpms-testing repos

Understanding the relationship of atrpms and atrpms-testing repos

Mar 13, 2012, 2:03 PM

Post #1 of 3 (1243 views)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Community:
I write this based on my recent experience with libvpx and what I
believe I now understand about the atrpms-testing repo. I must backup
and say that when working in the fedora community the name -testing on
a repo always meant something that could potentially break your fedora
system and be bug laden. I am slowly, yes thickheadedly learning Axel
and John that this is not the case with atrpm-testing repo. In the
RHEL/CentOS/SL world of atrpms-testing it simply means it is something
that replaces a file in the base distribution.
This brings me to my latest question. right now the command "yum
list installed | grep atrpms-testing" lists 10 rpms. I saw the other
day that there are several 30+ some mythtv packages in atrpms-testing
which would replace the base packages I have. Is my assumption that
these packages in -testing are stable and not liable to break a
working system accurate? Just asking for confirmation.

liblirc_client0.x86_64 0.9.0-89.el6
@atrpms-testing
liblzo2_2.x86_64 2.03-6.el6
@atrpms-testing
libvpx.x86_64 1.0.0-1.el6
@atrpms-testing
libvpx0.x86_64 0.9.7.1-1_1.el6
@atrpms-testing
lirc.x86_64 0.9.0-89.el6
@atrpms-testing
lirc-devel.x86_64 0.9.0-89.el6
@atrpms-testing
qt47.x86_64 1:4.7.2-1_18.el6
@atrpms-testing
qt47-mysql.x86_64 1:4.7.2-1_18.el6
@atrpms-testing
qt47-webkit.x86_64 1:4.7.2-1_18.el6
@atrpms-testing
qt47-x11.x86_64 1:4.7.2-1_18.el6
@atrpms-testing

Sincerely,
Bob Lightfoot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPX7YOAAoJEKqgpLIhfz3XLvcH+QENbf5kspSvbHXlXiHGMqfq
zedjDMtLvVb+NIuo1jQAww69ftJhoGuTD6zyyC2qSbwCuGRE/KNvAwVJj7yxHZ6r
7MYAG8H5Tu4RIlF3N8PvScwgAkEJzR7zh+OQxQAfzyjGnMs0nBSbGh4pk9rgozvP
dHCWv/Xtnxa62UNpfD4vUEvqN3yK5kQD/CAaGYPugLjp+BXUrmvZt+NyJ2H5RWvR
RhrfzHgvbcBEWBS0VKTvt4/qXKAz3EZZV0ih3b2VUO5CrN0AfJY5SdaGyrGshE0a
CmqGigOMiJ/ck3OgmjahlpWUdtQ+7+4xda1qZym4jZRE9NhZ66tNtMQIlt/3E58=
=2CcV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

Re: Understanding the relationship of atrpms and atrpms-testing repos [ In reply to ]

J.Pilk at tesco

Mar 13, 2012, 3:40 PM

Post #2 of 3 (1176 views)

Permalink

On 13/03/12 21:03, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Community:
> I write this based on my recent experience with libvpx and what I
> believe I now understand about the atrpms-testing repo. I must backup
> and say that when working in the fedora community the name -testing on
> a repo always meant something that could potentially break your fedora
> system and be bug laden. I am slowly, yes thickheadedly learning Axel
> and John that this is not the case with atrpm-testing repo. In the
> RHEL/CentOS/SL world of atrpms-testing it simply means it is something
> that replaces a file in the base distribution.
> This brings me to my latest question. right now the command "yum
> list installed | grep atrpms-testing" lists 10 rpms. I saw the other
> day that there are several 30+ some mythtv packages in atrpms-testing
> which would replace the base packages I have. Is my assumption that
> these packages in -testing are stable and not liable to break a
> working system accurate? Just asking for confirmation.
>

I don't know what to say here. I have no official place in Axel's team
but I'm a satisfied user and I try to help when I can. I certainly
don't want to do the opposite.

Earlier this week in the 'Update failure el6' thread Axel said:

> libvpx.so.1 is in atrpms-testing. It replaces a package from the
> vendor, so it is not allowed to go into stable.
>
> You can temporarily enable the testing repo and try updating again.

...which suggests that some caution is still prudent. The more packages
from testing you have, the more you stray from the RH-tested path - but
without them you won't be able to run the extra goodies. I believe that
packages in testing are in general closely based on ones that have been
out in the wild in other distros for some time, but they must inevitably
carry some extra risk. I doubt that many will be active in core
'enterprise' tasks, but if your insurer demands certification....

John P

_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

Re: Understanding the relationship of atrpms and atrpms-testing repos [ In reply to ]

J.Pilk at tesco

Mar 14, 2012, 4:05 AM

Post #3 of 3 (1174 views)

Permalink

On 13/03/12 22:40, John Pilkington wrote:
> On 13/03/12 21:03, Bob Lightfoot wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dear Community:
>> I write this based on my recent experience with libvpx and what I
>> believe I now understand about the atrpms-testing repo. I must backup
>> and say that when working in the fedora community the name -testing on
>> a repo always meant something that could potentially break your fedora
>> system and be bug laden. I am slowly, yes thickheadedly learning Axel
>> and John that this is not the case with atrpm-testing repo. In the
>> RHEL/CentOS/SL world of atrpms-testing it simply means it is something
>> that replaces a file in the base distribution.
>> This brings me to my latest question. right now the command "yum
>> list installed | grep atrpms-testing" lists 10 rpms. I saw the other
>> day that there are several 30+ some mythtv packages in atrpms-testing
>> which would replace the base packages I have. Is my assumption that
>> these packages in -testing are stable and not liable to break a
>> working system accurate? Just asking for confirmation.
>>
>
> I don't know what to say here. I have no official place in Axel's team
> but I'm a satisfied user and I try to help when I can. I certainly don't
> want to do the opposite.
>
> Earlier this week in the 'Update failure el6' thread Axel said:
>
>> libvpx.so.1 is in atrpms-testing. It replaces a package from the
>> vendor, so it is not allowed to go into stable.
>>
>> You can temporarily enable the testing repo and try updating again.
>
> ...which suggests that some caution is still prudent. The more packages
> from testing you have, the more you stray from the RH-tested path - but
> without them you won't be able to run the extra goodies. I believe that
> packages in testing are in general closely based on ones that have been
> out in the wild in other distros for some time, but they must inevitably
> carry some extra risk. I doubt that many will be active in core
> 'enterprise' tasks, but if your insurer demands certification....
>

Having just looked at the el6-testing repo again I wonder if you were
actually enquiring about the mythtv 'bijou' packages that have just
arrived there. They provide a tweaked version of 0.24.2 and you can
read about them in Yeechang Lee's recent post here. I ran the version
that was here earlier and was happy with it.

I can't find any 0.25-related packages. Me too!

John P

_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users