Going back to yum or up2date

[ne...]

On Oct 12, 2004 at 09:36, Peter Cannon in a soothing rage wrote:

>Hi All
>
>Whats the implications of stopping the use of apt-get and going back to using 
>yum/up2date?
Short of disk space, none that I can think of. The important thing
is to get and install the upgrades. Naturally, you are going to have
to learn the new syntax, but that should not be a problem.

>I currently use synaptic for updating. I decided to switch to Gnome from KDE 
>and the up2date icon said 60 updates available some of which are KDE related.
Your means of updating should not have anything to do with the desktop
environment you use. On my FC3t2 machine, I use KDE exclusively and
update using up2date all the time. On my FC2 machine, I alse use KDE
exclusively and have the up2date applet running. When updates appear,
I manually dl them and install/upgrade using rpm.

>I know its not good to use two/three different update programs but synaptic 
>has not given any updates for a couple of months now so I am thinking of 
>going back to up2date.
The drawback is the space they all use for their metadata. When you
switch between them they need to update the metadata. Now if you use
the same repos for all three, you are 'triplicating' data. The good
thing is work is being done to move all three to a common metadata
format. When this happens, you will be able to choose the poison
you prefer.

>What are the pitfalls of going ahead with the updates offered by up2date?
See my arguments above.

N.Emile...
-- 
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
Switch to: http://www.speakeasy.net/refer/190653
Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.
07:46:12  up 106 days,  1:00,  4 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00