the proper way to 'yum update' a new 'everything' install of FC4?

[Mike McCarty]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 23:33, Mike McCarty wrote:
>  
> 
>>>>By "package" I mean a managed release.
>>>
>>>
>>>You mean something that has internally known dependencies that
>>>must be met during installation and update?
>>
>>Yes. And which has been through integration test to ensure
>>that all the parts work together.
> 
> 
>>FC does not support this concept, as it is a project, and not
>>a product.
> 
> 
> I don't see the distinction. Products continue to change
> too.
> 
> 
>>There is no configuration management nor packaging
>>being done, beyond establishing baselines at certain intervals
>>via release of a named version.
> 
> 
> No packaging?  What do you call an RPM?  No management?
> What do you call the versioning and dependencies?

I really don't want to debate. Fedora offers what might
be called a collection of packages, yes. However it does
not offer what might be called comprehensive packages.

Any one piece may be self consistent. But there is no single
package which includes all the parts necessary to make a working
system. That is what I mean. There is no "accounting package" which
contains the kernel, a display manager, window manager, and accounting
software. There is no "office package" which contains a kernel,
and office stuff. There is no "math package" which contains a kernel,
etc.

At the Telecomm company I worked for, we offered an STP (Signal Transfer
Point), for example, which had a whole software set + hardware to make
a working STP. The entire package was tested to work as a whole, and
was guaranteed to do the work of an STP. We also offered Class 5 switch
package which did everything a Class 5 switch should do. And a Tandem
Switch package which did everything a Tandem Switch should do. And
a VOIP Gateway package which had all the hardware and software necessary
to do VOIP Gateway stuff.

There is no such concept with FC. There is no "business package" which
has everything one needs to run a business, and which contains
accounts receivable, and accounts payable, and payroll, and...
you get the idea.

In short, there is no PRODUCT. There are a collection of unrelated,
untested (together, I mean) separate little packages, one might say,
but OO is not tested with Xine. They are treated as completely
separate entities.

So, yum is inadequate, because while each little independent "package"
has its own list of dependencies, they are never tied together to
make working systems. And the dependencies, though they are
independently consistent, can have global inconsistencies.

The proof of my statement is the existence of this thread. Locally
consistent dependency lists can be globally inconsistent.

>>>We are talking about fedora here.  You are the tester.  It is
>>>guaranteed to interoperate only after you stop reporting that
>>>it is broken.
>>
>>Which in no way contradicts anything I have said. I stated that
>>what one fellow wanted seemed to be a request to have packages.
>>This is something which really doesn't seem to suit the FC
>>Project as opposed to Product philosophy.
> 
> 
> It does have packages and his particular problem involved

It has a certain local type of package, but it has no
global type of package. RPM is a wonderful tool, but
it is not the end of configuration management.

The Fedora Core project was created with a philosophy which
actually precludes such kinds of global packaging.

This is not a bad thing. It's just the way things are.

[snip]

> If the package that started the discussion was something
> necessary or that needed to be maintained, then you would
> have a point, but it would be that there is a bug that
> needs to be fixed, not that the concept doesn't work
> to maintain a product.

Fedora Core is not a product, as the web pages related to it
repeatedly and pointedly proclaim. This issue, as I'm discussing
it, is unrelated to the particular piece, but rather to the
lack of what you might prefer to call a comprehensive package.
Which Fedora Core, due to its nature, really cannot have. It isn't
intended to have one.

And I'm not criticizing it for being so. I just pointed out to
the OP that it looked like he was asking for such packaging.

I did make one statement that one fellow seemed to be motivated
differently from me.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!