Simplifying RPM management with RHN/up2date, yum, apt, rcd, etc...
William Hooper
whooperhsd3 at earthlink.net
Thu Dec 11 21:42:08 UTC 2003
Exile In Paradise said:
> On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 14:50, William Hooper wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Up2date and rhn_applet only look at /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources. apt and
>> yum only look at their respective conf files.
>
> Right, if YUM and Up2date are both hitting YUM repositories then you
> should have the same repositories listed in both places?
>
> And when APT is also up2date-friendly, then you should put the same
> repositories in both places as well?
Depends on how you use it. If you plan on using up2date then you don't
even need yum or apt installed.
> Thats what seems breakable, 2 different config files to update for each
> repository type...
Flexable. I'll give you an example: I like grabbing some packages from
FreshRPMs, but don't care about some of the updates they have to things
Fedora ships. I don't have FreshRPMs in my sources file, so the
rhn_applet doesn't always show an update available. However, if I want a
Fresh RPMs package I can just "yum install".
>> > What conflicts tend to come up using APT and YUM sources together?
>>
>> This depends a lot on the sources. If more than one source provides a
>> package then you might get a different package than you were expecting.
>
> That seems like it could lead to some strange(tm) results.
True.
>> Channel names are whatever you want to call them. There isn't a rule
>> that
>> says it must be anything, but I generally follow what the maintainer
>> has.
>> For example:
>> http://ayo.freshrpms.net/fedora/linux/1/i386/freshrpms becomes freshrpms
>> (as opposed to fedora-core-1 or fedora-core-updates-released).
>
> So, the channel name is the last part of the HTTP in that case... thats
> what seems unclear to me... am I understanding correctly the convention
> for where the channel names come from correctly?
That's what I use. "Convention" is a little strong, though :-)
> Sounds like you could roll your own if you wanted (which I never find
> objectionable... more flexibility and choice, and if yer a UNIX admin,
> its okay for software to assume you know what you're doing)
Much more "roll your own".
--
William Hooper
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list