RPM upgrade discussion

[Wade Maxfield]

  I've been forced to upgrade to the rpm-4.1.1-1.8x package from rpm.org 
to make redhat 8 play nice and survive more than 3 or 4 update cycles 
without freezing.

  I don't think we need to go to 4.2 rpm, but the 4.1 rpm update is a 
must, based on personal experience with several machines.




On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Christian Pearce wrote:

> 
 > Hello.  I am new to the list and I just got up to speed.  I am hoping 
to contribute in every way possible.
> 
 > I have to agreed with this as well.  If Yum-1.x in functional for 
 updating 7.x machines and rpm 4.0.4 is stable then let sleeping dogs lie.  
 This does raise the question of Red Hat 8.0 and Red Hat 9.  Are they 
 unstable enough to warrant an upgrade?  Quite frankly I don't have enough 
 recollection to say either way.  I know for a fact I sometimes run into 
 problems with Red Hat 8.0 that requires me to kill rpm upgrades and 
 remove database files.  So this is what I assume people are talking 
 about.  Again I think there should be one way of doing this.  So if we 
 aren't going to upgrade 7.x machines because they are good enough.  And 
 the Fedora Core 1 rpm binary package is stable.  Then we should make the 
 Red Hat 8.0 and Red Hat 9 (if it is a problem i don't know) edge cases 
 that can be handled as a decision to be made by the end user.  This also 
 would follow the spirit of the Fedora Legacy framework as Jesse stated 
 below.  Not to mention people should work to phase out their Red H!
 > at 7.x - 9 installations.  So I hope in a couple years this becomes a 
 mute talk.  This leads me to the following question.  Can we provide the 
 rpm package as a extra or crontrib package?  I apologize for my lack of 
correct terminology I am still getting up to speed.
> 
> --
> Christian Pearce
> http://www.commnav.com
> 
> 
> 
> Jesse Keating said:
> > 
> > On Tuesday 30 December 2003 06:00, seth vidal wrote:
> > > I'd like to reiterate - that's only for yum-2.x. Yum-1.x works fine
> > > with rpm 4.0.4 and I've been using 1.x for quite a while now on a
> > > whole lot of machines.
> > 
> > I tend to agree here.  I've been using it on my 7.x box for quite a 
> > while without issues.  It seems that since 7.x's yum is functional, and 
> > 7.x's RPM is mostly functional, I propose that we don't upgrade RPM as 
> > a legacy upgrade.  People can still upgrade it themselves if they want, 
> > but it doesn't really seem to fall into Legacy's proposed framework, 
> > and thus it shouldn't happen.  I'm strongly urging not to upgrade RPM 
> > as a legacy upgrade.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net)
> > Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
> > Mondo DevTeam           (www.mondorescue.org)
> > GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
> >  
> > Was I helpful?  Let others know:
> >  http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
> >