Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Raymond wrote:
>>> Is there any clear and ordered process to install from rpm? I am
>>> running Fedora Core 1 and started from rpm -i
>> The -easy- way is to download ALL of the Summersoft RPMs, sans the DB42
>> ancillary files, to an empty directory, rpm -ivh the db42 RPMs (rpm -ivh
>> db42-*.rpm), delete the db42 RPMs (rm -f db42-*.rpm) and then rpm -Uvh
>> balance (rpm -Uvh *.rpm)
> the summersoft repo should not be used for anything -- it's just plain
> broken and violates the rules for a well-designed repository.
> in the first place, any decent repository should *not* force you to go
> through the above contortions. any decent repository should not force
> you to go through *any* contortions -- you should simply have to point at
> it and say "go", and it should go. the fact that you have to tap dance
> to get it to work properly means it's broken. but that's not all.
> it also violates the cardinal rule that it does not play well with FC1 in
> the first place. if you look there, you'll notice that there are RPMs
> based on the apache runtime libs (apr), version 0.9.5.
> there *is* no version 0.9.5 -- not from FC1's perspective, not from
> apache's perspective.
> if you go to the fedora rawhide repo, the latest supported apr rpms are
> only 0.9.4, so to supply allegedly FC1-compatible 0.9.5 rpms is
> meaningless. even www.apache.org lists 0.9.4 as the latest versions,
> so it's not clear where these 0.9.5 versions came from, but they're quite
> simply junk. by installing them, you are technically breaking your FC1
> the same can be said for the summersoft httpd rpms. they are provided as
> version 2.0.48-1.2.1. i have no idea where this version came from --
> the most recent (rawhide) version of httpd that is FC1-approved is
> httpd-2.0.48-18. it's unacceptable for summersoft to be providing
> some weird, non-standard version of httpd that clashes with the FC1
> and then there's the db42* rpms which, quite simply, don't exist in FC1
> world. the proper rpms for FC1 can be found at rawhide, and are of the
> form "db4-4.2*", not the weird versions found at summersoft. quite simply,
> the summersoft repo will make a mess of your system, and should be taken
> offline before it screws anyone else's machine.
> as someone else pointed out, there appears to be an acceptable repo for
> subversion 1.0.1 rpms for FC1 at
> the version numbers there for things like apr and httpd are correct and
> FC1-compatible, and there are no bogus db42 rpms. i haven't tried to
> install from there, i'm still trying to clean up my machine from the
> disaster that is summersoft.
I have a few comments.
Ranting at someone who volunteers their time and bandwidth to provide RPMs
isn't very nice.
The confusion relating to APR versions is because the APR team have been
intending to but never quite getting around to releasing a new APR for
months. Leaving subversion in the unhappy state of requiring a version of
APR never released indepenently from apache.
The 0.9.5 RPMs are not 'junk' or 'bogus' or 'technically broken' simply for
being 0.9.5, they are simply a best effort to handle a situation beyond the
control of subversion.
I think it is a bit of a stretch to be calling rawhide "FC1-approved", given
that the stated upgrade policy between RedHat/Fedora releases and rawhide is
"there is no guarantee that there will *be* an upgrade pathway".
Then there are the db42 RPMs, which are an intelligent attempt to prevent
people accidentally upgrading away their FC1-standard db4.1. Once again,
rawhide does not mean "proper for FC1".
I'm sorry you screwed up your machine, but realistically, recovery should be
no harder than removing and reinstalling the relevant RPMs. Not difficult,
and hardly worthy of this vitriolic email.
And by the way, you are aware that the alternative repository you deem
acceptable is intended for FC2 *not* FC1?
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue Mar 23 12:26:00 2004