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 >