Use up2date vs yum - why?

[Kam Leo]

On 8/5/05, Liloulinx <alilou_linux at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
> 
> > akonstam at trinity.edu wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:29:20AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >>
> >>> I use FC2, so the question is resolved for me. But I suppose
> >>> I'll eventually go to a later version. While it was available
> >>> for me, I used up2date, with the little icon on the "taskbar"
> >>> (or whatever it's called in FC). I had no problems with it.
> >>> In fact, it appears to be a GUI to yum.
> >>>
> >>> So, why do I see messages here promoting yum over up2date?
> >>> IOW, what advantage does yum have for someone simply wanting
> >>> to update his packages?
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> It is a matter of taste. Since you have discovered it is really the
> >> same program I would choose the on that suits your temperament.
> >
> >
> > up2date and yum are not the same program. At least, they weren't up
> > until FC4. In FC4, up2date calls python modules from yum to handle
> > repomd style sources (which are the default for FC4). The code for
> > handling other types of repos (e.g. RHN channels, apt, old-style yum
> > [pre FC4]) is entirely separate code.
> >
> > The best reason for using yum in FC4 is that it works more reliably
> > than up2date.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> 
> But I think that to upgrade from FC3 (or FC2) to FC4, 'yum upgrade'
> generate some problems.  'Up2date'  I think it doesn't have this problem
> (I haven't tested it yet!!!). What do you think about?
> ---
> Liloulinx (http://freealilou/free.fr)
> 

Up through FC3 up2date is/was a working utility.  The revamped version
for FC4 is broken and needs repair.  Since the latest version is based
upon yum libraries this begs the question: "Why not just use yum?"