[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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



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




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]