On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Troy Dawson wrote:

> *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?

Redo it to do what?

-connie sieh
> >>  >
> >>  > - 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
>