[Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade?

[Jarod C.Wilson]

On Oct 31, 2003, at 1:25 PM, Warren Togami wrote:

>> Lucas Albers wrote:
>>>
>>> Honestly, I think we all only care about one thing.
>>> Erratta for our release.
>>> The minumum amount of change necessary to keep using our systems.
>>> No change in rpm. The very smallest security updates required to keep
>>> our systems non exploitable.
>>
>> Agreed. I see the benefit of upgrading rpm, but I also fear some of 
>> the
>> side effects.
>> -1
>
> Please do not warn of side effects without giving concrete examples.  
> We
> (the fedora.us team) have been grappling with these issues for more 
> than a
> year now, and we are fully aware of the consequences of upgrading rpm. 
>  It
> is my personal opinion that RH8 especially is UNUSUABLE without a rpm
> upgrade, and it is almost entirely unfounded fear to not leave RH's
> released version that prevents the benefits of the stable upgrade.
> However if you have concrete examples of where this causes a great
> failure, please make it known.

I have one, but I'm still in favor of forcing everyone to rpm 4.2. I 
upgraded to rpm 4.2 (from Axel's site) on a RHL7.3 box here, which 
forced me to remove ucd-snmp and ethereal, because ucd-snmp has a dep 
on librpm404, and ethereal depends on ucd-snmp. To get around this, 
Axel created a librpm404-compat package, which after I installed, I was 
able to reinstall ucd-snmp and ethereal, so there are ways around it, 
and that's the only problem I've had with upgrading a Red Hat Linux 7.3 
system to rpm 4.2.

-- 
Jarod C. Wilson, RHCE
jcw at wilsonet.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20031101/ca64e1d9/attachment.sig>