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

Re: monstrous failure of "yum update" on fedora 11 alpha



On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 10:11 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:36 AM, seth vidal <skvidal fedoraproject org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 00:43 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Yes, we've established where we are now, but we need a path to be
> >> better off in the the future. Heck even RHEL "up2date" is able to
> >> update itself first, *and* be certain it will work afterwards.
> >
> > umm. No it isn't.
> >
> > up2date is in no better state than yum. It's in the same language using
> > very similar calls.
> 
> So, if I steal the tires off a Porsche and put them on my Chevy Aveo,
> my car will work just as well?

Is up2date the porsche in this analogy?

> My *experience* says otherwise. Yes, I realize there are well over 100
> open up2date bugs. However, I have several RHEL systems on which I run
> up2date monthly from cron, and often interactively using X, and I
> can't recall the last time I had a problem. It would have been at
> least a year ago. Whereas, with yum and Fedora, versions 10 and 11
> especially, updates fail much more often.


rhel doesn't break compatibility. That's why it is so much more stable.


-sv



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