SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2005

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
yum vs. up2date?
From:
Todd Blake <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Todd Blake <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:11:40 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines) 
Should I be using yum or up2date to update my SL 4.0 systems?  I saw that errata 
were no available for SL 4.0 and issued a "yum update" and it tells me nothing 
is in need of updating, but "up2date -l" tells me of three packages we have 
installed that need it.  Any ideas/tips/hints?  I pasted below the output from 
"up2date -l" and "yum update".

root@radon# yum update
Setting up Update Process
Setting up Repos
sl-base                   100% |=========================| 1.1 kB    00:00
sl-errata                 100% |=========================|  951 B    00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
sl-base   : ################################################## 1447/1447
No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion


root@radon# up2date -l

Fetching Obsoletes list for channel: scientific-base...

Fetching Obsoletes list for channel: scientific-errata...

Fetching rpm headers...
########################################

Name                                    Version        Rel
----------------------------------------------------------
cvs                                     1.11.17        7.RHEL4           i386
devhelp                                 0.9.2          2.4.4             i386
mozilla-nspr                            1.7.7          1.4.2             i

ATOM RSS1 RSS2