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

[Mike McCarty]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 23:27, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> Before you pat yourself on the back too many times, spend a

I wasn't patting myself on the back or flaunting credentials.
I was responding to what one might call an accusation of being
too ivory tower.

> moment thinking about how your code updates would have
> fared if they had been allowed to be installed (a) by people
> with no training and (b) onto any kind of hardware from
> any vendor, most of which the engineers had never seen.
> 
> My guess is that regardless of your methodology, you'd do
> no better than the fedora approach under real-world PC
> conditions.

Not so. But I also couldn't produce software of that quality
for the price that Red Hat produces any of its products or
Fedora, either. That type of quality assurance and meeting
that type of availability requirements is not something that
comes cheaply.

I'll say it again... I'm not criticizing Fedora.

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!