*chuckles*
Ya'll are too fast for me this morning.  I keep getting halfway through 
writting an e-mail before it already get's answered.

Jaroslaw Polok wrote:
> John Franks wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 01:48, Jaroslaw Polok wrote:
>>
>>  > >   yum.cron - keep it the same or redo it?
>>  >
>>  > - What about using up2date (from FC3) with yum
>>  >    repositories behind ?
>>  >    (there are some goodies there: alike selecting
>>  >     'nearest' repository server .. etc)
>>  >
>>
>> Yum is nicer for scripts (e.g. cron jobs) than up2date.  
> 
> 
> Configuring up2date to use yum repository does not remove yum...
> 

In fact, we already have up2date configured to use yum, pointing to our 
repository.

>> FC3 allows the
>> use of yum or up2date and I much prefer yum.  Yum will also
>> automatically select a repository (based on some unknown [to me]
>> algorithm).  
> 
> 
> So will up2date using yum backend (this is done by the same script)
> 
> It took me a while to discover how to turn this off and use
> 

Yes, the configuration file is hard to find, but once you find it, it 
has several examples of different ways to configure it.

>> my own choice of repository.  Of course both yum and up2date are
>> available and you can take your pick.
> 

Yup.  What is we put it in the things to pick section.  We already have 
Apt, and Yum there, what if we have an Up2date section and people can 
pick whether they want up2date or yum or apt?

Personally, for servers and desktops, I don't like the little icon in 
the corner.  But for my laptop, I sorta like it.  Because I never know 
if anacron has ran yum for me or not.

> 
> That's my point: using up2date is 'natural' for all past
> Red Hat users (and a lot of current Fedora Core ones).
> 
>> Since I have about 50 SL machines I keep a local mirror of the part of
>> the SL repository we use.  For that reason I would prefer that
>> /etc/yum.conf not be overwritten on an upgrade.  Of course, I may be in
>> the minority on this.
> 
> 
> That's separate question: yum.conf is supplied via
> yum-config RPM and should be marked there as %config(noreplace)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jarek
Yup, that is a seperate question and one I keep going back and forth on.

The problem is that is someone is doing an upgrade, either by yum, or by 
doing an installation upgrade, they DO want their yum.conf updated. 
Because why would you want to upgrade, but still have your yum pointing 
to 303, if you are now at 4.2.  So in that case you would want it to be 
just a regular %config.

Now yum 2.2 (which is going into the next alpha/beta release) works 
correctly with our sl-release.  So we actually can have the yum.conf's 
point to .../$releasever/$basearch/... Then the admin just has to update 
sl-release, and their yum automatically points to the new one.

Anyway, discussion on how to do the yum.conf is welcome.  But just know, 
we are going to be doing yum 2.2 for S.L. 4x.  I just didn't have it 
ready by the time Connie had the release ready, so we just stuck in the 
old 2.0.7.

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/CSS  CSI Group
__________________________________________________