SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

June 2009

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@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:
From:
Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:19:52 -0500
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (33 lines)
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Troy Dawson wrote:

> Hello,
> I have been wanting to update the kernel-module plugin for yum on SL5. I have 
> it all ready in the testing area, and it does work so much better than the 
> previous kernel module plugin.
> The problem is that it does not backport very well to yum 3.0 which is on SL 
> 5.0 and 5.1.  To keep things short there is a bug in yum 3.0 (and 2.4) that 
> prevents the plugin's from fixing up dependancies when yum gets them wrong. 
> This bug is fixed in yum 3.2 (which is what is in SL 5.2 and 5.3)
> So why would I worry about upgrading the old yum?
> Because along with bug fixes, there is a couple of feature changes.  The 
> biggest change is that yum 3.2 automatically has the installonlyn feature. 
> This only keeps 'n' kernels on your machine.
> This works pretty good and I think many people will think it's great. But I 
> don't know if everyone is going to like it, and they might be surprised by 
> it.
> Anyway, I need opinions.  Should I push the newer yum out to all of SL5?
>  Or should I just push it out to SL 5.2 and 5.3?

And live with the bugs for 5.0 and 5.1 .  Can you give more detail about 
these bugs.

-connie sieh
>
> Troy
> -- 
> __________________________________________________
> Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
> Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI LMSS Group
> __________________________________________________
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2