Yum, autoupdate (was: Re: Graphical boot isn't so graphical)

[Matthias Saou]

Pekka Savola wrote :

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:25:55PM -0700, Samuel Flory wrote: 
> > >   Is seeing something like apt-get out of the question? 
> > 
> > In fact it's one of our highest priorities; people are arguing about
> > apt vs. yum but there will definitely be stuff along these lines.
> 
> For what it's worth, we've been using autoupdate quite happily for a
> coupl of years now; see:
> 
> http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~gerald/ftp/autoupdate/index.html
> 
> We used apt in the past, but IMHO it wasn't as good as autoupdate.  
> Haven't checked out yum at all.

Then do check out yum : It has the ease of use that autoupdate has, trivial
package signature checking like autoupdate has, but uses rpmlib and the
actual package headers to calculate updates, so it doesn't miss the
"Obsoletes:" tags nor the epoch increases... like autoupdate does.

I'm still using autoupdate on quite a lot of production servers, but am
switching to yum on the new ones.

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Raw Hide 20030722 running Linux kernel 2.4.20-20.1.2013.nptl
Load : 0.92 0.29 0.15