[PlanetCCRMA] Re: Apt-get repositories compatibility

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
Wed Dec 31 05:20:03 2003

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:34:58PM +0100, Mr.Freeze wrote:
> Nice changing topics... like Christmas flashing lights?

Glad it caught your attention. Flashing would not be flashing, if it
wouldn't change back ;)

> On the ATrpms page (http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/) can be read the f=
> "Please check out the following rpm repositories also. They are all activ=
ated in
> atrpms' configuration."
> Does this solve my is-it-a-bug-or-not problem?=20

I lost the context here, which problem did you have?

> Does then "activated" mean what I called aliased linked: once I setup your
> repository only in apt, will I retrieve from all the others mentionned re=
> If yes, great!=20

Yes, they are all accessible just like planetccrma and atrpms, e.g. by
apt/synaptic and sometimes even yum (whether the dozen repos are
really available depends on whether they provide rpms for your chosen
distribution or not, e.g. all are there for RH9, about only half have
setup FC1 repos).

> What if I live in Europe and prefer the IRCAM hosted mirror?

Edit the /etc/apt/sources.list to your liking (including deactivating
repos or adding new ones, etc.). Note, that it will not be changed in
subsequent upgrades, e.g. if a new repo has been added, and you have
manually changed /etc/apt/sources.list, it will not be overwritten,
but instead saved into /etc/apt/sources.list.rpmnew (where you can go
and compare what has been changed).

> ATrpms containing mplayer...?
> Doesn't Dag take care of that piece of software too?

There are overlaps that we try to eliminate, it is even worse than
that, freshrpms has that rpm also, and we (freshrpms,dag,atrpms) have
blessed freshrpms as the authoritative packager. Same goes for alsa,
which is even doubled 4 times! It is the goal of the maintainers'
discussions to consolidate those efforts, which go in three steps:

1) Make what we currently have compatible, e.g. eliminate conflicts.
2) Shape the repos to the same naming conventions and in general the
   same packaging specifications.
3) Merge doubled packages.

We are quite good with step 1), step 2) has been discussed quite well
and there seems to be general consensus accross most repos. In fact
planetccrma, dag and atrpms all have almost exactly the same naming
conventions. There are some special cases like kernel modules to
finalize, but I'd say we are 90% through.

Step 3) means to collect all good parts from the doubled packages and
merge the sensible bits together, assigning it to a master repo,
e.g. IMO audio/sound components clearly belong to CCRMA. If another
repo believes that it still needs to offer the same package, then it
should be a verbatim copy (some repo mainatiners do want to keep their
repo selfcontained).

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)