yum and rpm updates for 8.0

[Jesse Keating]

On Wednesday 28 January 2004 10:27, Jason Lim wrote:
> It was my understanding that minimal changes were to be made to the
> original redhat distributions, so it would make sense to stay with
> the existing rpm version (unless it has a security flaw) and use yum
> 1.x.

Almost.  The rpm locking issue is pretty bad, and Red Hat didn't upgrade 
it for certain internal political and technical reasons, which we are 
not bound to.

> According to Fedoralegacy.org:
>
> --------------------
>  In most cases, fixes are backported to the current package version
> rather than upgrading the package to a newer version. This is done in
> order to limit the possible side-effects which can result from an
> upgrade. Packages are only upgraded to a newer version if consensus
> dictates that we should do so for some specific reason.
> --------------------
>
> Does yum 2.x have some significant difference or features over yum
> 1.x that make it much more compelling to upgrade rpm as well? And is
> this difference or feature critical or significant to it's operation?
> I was of the thinking that changes to newer version would be kept to
> a minimal to avoid possible side-effects. Redhat didn't upgrade RH8's
> rpm over it's lifetime... so they must have deemed it stable (or
> stable enough). Do we... or should we... rock the boat just to get a
> newer version of yum?
>
> Just my 2c ... this has been discussed to death already ;-)

Yum is not the reason for upgrading RPM, it is merely a side bonus.  The 
lock issue is a big issue for people who use apt or rpm directly.  Yum 
users are not effected as yum uses a different library which will not 
trigger the lock.  For this reason, rpm will be left as an optional 
upgrade, not one that is forced/required of Legacy users.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
Mondo DevTeam           (www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
 
Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20040128/30c4c991/attachment.sig>