Yum in cron confusion?

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 02:04:28AM -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:08:59 +0100, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:45:01AM -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
> > > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:19:42 +0000, Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org> wrote:
> > > > William John Murray wrote:
> > > > >   Hello FC3 users,
> > > > >         I am confused by yum in cron, it doesn't seem to work for me.
> > > > >
> > > > >   If I "/sbin/chkconfig --list yum" I see:
> > > > > yum             0:off   1:off   2:on    3:on    4:on    5:on    6:off
> > > > > which looks good.  There is a file '/etc/cron.daily/yum.cron' (which if
> > > > > I run it interactively seems to update yum.)
> > > > >
> > > > > /var/log/cron was run at 4am, but there is no sign of it having done
> > > > > anything at all. Certainly my system was not updated, but where should
> > > > > it leave any error messages? I can add debug by hand of course, but it
> > > > > is a very slow turnaround, and surely there must be a log file
> > > > > somewhere?
> > > >
> > > > If you change the "-R 10" and "-R 120" options in
> > > > /etc/cron.daily/yum.cron to "-R 1", the script will run much more quickly.
> > > >
> > > > Yum should log packages installed and updated in /var/log/yum.log
> > > >
> > > > If you run "yum update" manually up to the point where it says "is the
> > > > OK?" (you can say "no" whilst experimenting), does it complain about any
> > > > missing dependencies?
> > > >
> > > > >  I found a top about timing on: http://aaltonen.us/archive/2004/10/
> > > > > which requires a file /etc/cron.daily/yum which I do not have. Is
> > > > > my installation defective?
> > > >
> > > > I doubt it; maybe the /etc/cron.daily/yum was a typo.
> > > >
> > > > Paul.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do a "rpm -q atrpms" to verify the cron job was installed as part of
> > > the atrpms package.  If it was you might try reinstalling the package
> > > from the ATrpms repo.
> > 
> > Please Kam, that reply is totally useless (_you_ should be verifying
> > _before_ posting), no need to show your love for ATrpms every second
> > post you make ;)
> > 
> > Ceterum censeo ATrpmsa culpa esse.
> 
> My apologies Axel.  I certainly had no intention of offending you.  I
> use atrpms as a signal for the enabling of the ATrpms repo. I should
> have asked the OP if 0check4updates was installed in
> /etc/cron.d/cron.daily.  If that was the case he might have solved his
> problems by installing updated rpm and yum packages from your repo. 

Just to make this clear, the reported issue is not ATrpms related in
any way, and there are no problems that could be solved by updated packages.

> Unless you have changed dependencies atrpms would have been pulled
> in as part of either package.

That was true until 2003 I think, we are at 2005 currently. The atrpms
package is required by perl and kmdl packages for the reasons outline
1001 times. Neither yum nor rpm is a perl and/or yum package.

My plea to you and others: Please always verify what you are about to
type into a post. A wrong post does ten times more harm than any
accurate correct one.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20050203/4370752d/attachment-0001.sig>