RPMForge vs. Livna for FC5

[Dr. Z]

Anyone who is using 3rd party repositories with FC5 -- which has better support, Fedora.US (extras) + LIVNA, or the RPMForge.Net alliance? I saw a post here about getting MPlayer from LIVNA. I really hope to avoid using FC4 packages!

[smfinley]

FC5 has not yet been released. FC5 tests 1 and 2 are development snapshots. Do not expect FC5 packages from RPMForge until Fedora Core 5 is actually released.

[drunkahol]

Agree with Stanton. The repos will not support FC5 fully until the actual release.

When FC4 was released I used the x86_64 version and the repos took a while to catch up with the release. I think all their efforts go into getting the i386 repos up and running first.

As for the old RPMForge vs Livna/Extras - my vote goes for RPMForge. Having said that, it would be *MUCH* easier if all the repos would get along together in the first place. Having to choose between two different camps makes things more difficult. Novice users who are trying to get the maximum repo coverage are going to whack all repos they can find in. A few days later they'll run into the brick wall of repo incompatibility.

I don't mean to re-open the debate/war between the repos, but this situation is really quite poor from the point of view of attracting novice users.

Cheers

Duncan

[sej7278]

will rpmforge even be working by the time fc5 is released?

i'm no fan of livna, i use dries/dag/freshrpms/atrpms, but when are they going to finally merge into rpmforge?

[amessina]

RPMforge.net is working now! I've used it for quite some time with great success, so much so that I decided to be another US mirror (Chicago) for their repo. Their website needs lots of work, but the packages are available and updated regularly.

If you'd like to browse through to see what they have available, you can browse the mirror here:
ftp://ftp.messinet.com/pub/rpmforge/dag/.

[PeTzZz]

Fedora.US (extras) + LIVNA, or the RPMForge.Net alliance
Note that RPMforge's FAQ (http://rpmforge.net/user/faq/) says that all known problems have been fixed between Fedora Extras and RPMforge packages. So it is possible to use Fedora Extras with RPMforge. I think that it is also so in FC5, but I'm not sure.

[nlkrio]

I have two systems the one uses livna and the other RPMforge ,both of them are working with no problem.In my point of you the war should stop between repos.

[sej7278]

i've always used dag+dries+freshrpms+atrpms (rpmforge i guess) with extras, it works fine until you put livna in the mix, at least for fc4.

i think extras when it used to be called fedora.us would break dag under fc3.

the rpmforge guys need to fix their website - jees it doesn't even render properly and looks like a half-setup wiki, i guess they're too busy building packages for us! ;-)

EDIT: ok, i'm really confused now, just looked around...

ftp://ftp.messinet.com/pub/rpmforge/dag/redhat/el4/en/mirrors-rpmforge

...and it looks like this is just dag, surely not the whole of rpmforge, or is dag the only packager at the moment?

[Dr. Z]

FC5 has not yet been released. FC5 tests 1 and 2 are development snapshots. Do not expect FC5 packages from RPMForge until Fedora Core 5 is actually released.

ATrpms is supporting FC5 now.

http://atrpms.net/dist/fc5/

LIVNA doesn't. Apparently the poster was recommending to install an FC4 MPlayer rpm on FC5, which scares the crap out of me. I guess I'd rather build from source.

[amessina]

if you click on any of those links, they are still naming their files with fc4...

[smfinley]

Actually Dag is no longer packaging for Fedora Core 4. Dries has taken this over. Look at this post (http://lists.rpmforge.net/pipermail/users/2005-August/000050.html) for an explanation. See the yum section of Fedora Core 4 Installation Notes (http://stanton-finley.net/fedora_core_4_installation_notes.html) for information about configuring the RPMForge repositories to work with Fedora Core 4.

[smfinley]

ATrpms is supporting FC5 now.

http://atrpms.net/dist/fc5/

LIVNA doesn't. Apparently the poster was recommending to install an FC4 MPlayer rpm on FC5, which scares the crap out of me. I guess I'd rather build from source.Beware of Atrpms for these reasons (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnMahowald/ATrpmsWarning).

[Dr. Z]

if you click on any of those links, they are still naming their files with fc4...

In reference to http://atrpms.net/dist/fc5/ : they are naming the rpms .fc4.91.at and .fc4.90.at, which we know that 4.9x means "pre-5", i.e. "not-4".

[dries]

Hello,
About fc5 packages: these will be built against the final fc5. For the brave, there are already some test packages available for fc5-x86_64 test1 at http://ftp.belnet.be/packages/dries.ulyssis.org/fedora/fc5/x86_64/RPMS.dries/ . Only use them if you know what you're doing...

About the site: making packages is much more fun then making the site. You can get the sources of the site by subversion at http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/web/rpmforge.net/ . Feel free to make some patches :-)

About packaging at rpmforge: we're using one subversion tree to store all the spec files (accessible at http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/). These spec files are recompiled for different distribution/architecture combinations by different people, but they're made from the same spec files.

About that 'war': why do you think a war is going on? We're just different groups making packages. Last time i checked, we're not bombing each other :-)

kind regards,
Dries Verachtert

[smfinley]

Thanks so much for the clarification we've all been waiting for Dries. :)

[drunkahol]

I agree fully with Stanton's caution about using Atrpms. I've used it a few times to install MythTV and it's been absolute murder if it get's it's teeth into the system.

Tread with extreme caution if using Atrpms.

Cheers

Duncan

[nlkrio]

I sometimes use atrpms but only to install packages and never update any core packages,so I do not have any problem

[sej7278]

yeah, i just install some things that no other repo has but atrpms, like the ivtv driver stuff.

[nlkrio]

yeah, i just install some things that no other repo has but atrpms, like the ivtv driver stuff.

Installing from ATRPMS needs attention but for some packages is the only provider :)

[martin.sourada]

I personally use livna+extras. I like the livna/extras naming conventions - they get along well with other fedora core packages and there is no incompatibility between these repos, and only a few doubled software (e.g. audacity). So far I have no problem using these repos together. And if a package I want is not there I find it via http://rpm.pbone.net/ or http://www.rpmfind.net/ and yum usually handles the dependencies from livna/extras/core correctly. Just a personal opinion. I don't think there is much difference between using the livna/extras or rpmforge but they should not mix up together...