yum vs. up2date

[linux r]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:54:37 -0400, James Kosin
<jkosin at beta.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
> Fedora wrote:
> 
> >Can anyone give me some guidance on the pros and cons of yum
> >vs up2date for keeping my system updated? The little red button
> >on the task bar appears to use up2date, but yum seems to be
> >referenced as the thing to use on the Fedora web pages. Is it
> >just a matter of personal taste, or is there an argument for
> >using one or the other?
> >
> >
> >
> I believe it is really a matter of personal preference.  up2date can use
> apt, yum and directory archives to get updates.  yum is strictly yum
> archives.  apt is strictly apt archives.  yum is more popular on this
> list; although I personally like the flexibility of up2date.
> 
> The best thing, stick with one and learn all the options.  This includes
> all the configuration files and other uses.
> 
> Good Luck,
> James Kosin
> 
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> 

I have problems with yum sometimes.  Like if I say 'yum update
packagex', it will update my entire system, or try to anyway.  That is
the syntax from the man page.  I haven't seen what option turns that
off.  Does anyone know if yum has a '--force singlepackageonly' type
option?

Other than that, which is little more than a nuisance, I now prefer
yum.  Up2date would always seem to get pretty boggy on me, even when
updating just a few packages at a time.  I have not had that problem
with yum.  I am wondering if yum naturally checks more sites than
up2date does since I have not added any other sites for it to draw
from.

Marc

-- 
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. 
Ayn Rand