Quote:
Originally posted by jens
No, they just followed fedora's xmms update.
|
If xmms fails, do you report the bug to fedora or freshrpms?
It's freshrpm's package, not fedora's. If it was Fedora's package, then there would be no need for freshrpms to have it.
There are two cases I know of where xmms was working fine, freshrpm's updated xmms (which there should be absolutely no need to do if they are in fact the same as you claim) and xmms segfaulted.
I don't know that it was xmms itself to blame, it could have been a kernel driver or an xmms plugin (that's what I'm actually guessing) or something else.
Unless the md5sum of the .fr xmms binary matches the md5sum of the fedora xmms binary, it is a different xmms, and if the md5sum does match, then there is no point in it being part of the freshrpms repository.
I know it may seem like I'm making a bigger deal out of this than I need to, for all I know his xmms is less buggy than the Fedora xmms. It's just that replacing a vendor installed binary is something that the user should intentionally opt to do, not have it done for them by accident because they added someones repository and ran "yum update".
Hopefully a future version of yum will make that easier automatically.