Yum, autoupdate (was: Re: Graphical boot isn't so graphical)
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Thu Jul 24 10:31:46 UTC 2003
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Matthias Saou 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.
Do you use autoupdate-5.x? Also, obsoletes tags have been supported for a
long time now, I think..
Newer versions handle the more difficult cases with "autoinfo" files which
include all the information (such as epochs etc.).
Autoupdate also includes perl-RPM bindings which make it a bit more
robust.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list