Karanbir Singh wrote: > hi, > > Greg just pointed out on the centos-devel list that you are using a > newer than in EL5 version of yum for SL-5/Alpha and I was just wondering > what were the reasons why this is so ? > First: I figured I'd get a jump on RedHat. Version 3.0.3 has several bugfix's over 3.0.0. I don't *know* that they are going to go this version, but I would hope that they try to keep up to the latest stable version. I don't think they will jump versions (like go from 3.0 to 4.0) but I would hope they keep up with the latest track. (go from 3.0.3 to 3.0.4) Second: version 3.0.3 is much faster than version 3.0. The yum development team is working on speeding up yum. They are getting insanely picky in functions and calls. Most of these changes are in their unstable track, but some of the more reasonable changes have been back ported. I was having a hard time with how slow 3.0.0 was. > Is there some specific issue that you hit that required this version > bump or was it purely to bring in some newer functionality in 3.0.3 ? > And if so, are you looking to move to track upstream yum ( directly from > duke.edu ) rather than from EL5 ? > That depends on what the upstream vendor does. If they move along the same track, keeping up with the latest bug fixes, then I will use theirs. If they stick with yum 3.0.0, then no, I will just follow the yum's stable track, as long as it doesn't break other items in the release. Two things to note. We have been putting yum into Scientific Linux (and Fermi Linux before that) for a long time. It is something I and Connie regularly track and feel confident we will be able to continue to do so. And, we have to change the upstream vendors yum anyway. I do not want their RHN plugin in our yum. So yum will never come straight from them unaltered. Troy -- __________________________________________________ Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468 Fermilab ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group __________________________________________________