the proper way to 'yum update' a new 'everything' install of FC4?

[Mike McCarty]

William Hooper wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>Making updates be completely consistent is a matter of creating
>>packages, and releasing to packages in a way which keeps them consistent.
>>Currently there is no package.
> 
> 
> You seem to want to re-define "package" to mean something different than
> it commonly does on this list.

I dunno about that. I come from a background of 15+ years managing
packages and doing configuration management in the Telecomm industry
(though that was not my primary duty, all the engineers had to be
involved in it). So I'm using the jargon from my background. That
may or may not be the way the words get used here.

>>If you wish to discuss this further,
> 
> 
> I'd rather not.  I've been through enough "here's my Utopian view of how
> things should work" discussions.  They all boil down to: the current

I dunno about "utopian". I'm talking about supporting real working
long-distance telephony switches which are allowed to have no more
than 5 minutes unscheduled down time per year. Which I was able to
achieve. If that's not practical, then I guess I don't know what is.

> method works the majority of the time.  Edge cases can be handled by
> excluding updates, removing unused packages, or setting up your own local
> repository so that you can control what goes into it on your own schedule.

Is this different from what I said earlier about FC leaving
configuration management up to the user? If so, I don't see how.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!