Quoting Jason Lim <maillist@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > It was my understanding that minimal changes were to be made to the > original redhat distributions, so it would make sense to stay with the > existing rpm version (unless it has a security flaw) and use yum 1.x. No no no. > Does yum 2.x have some significant difference or features over yum 1.x > that make it much more compelling to upgrade rpm as well? And is this It doesn't matter. The rpm version upgrade is to fix bugs in rpm, not to allow for using yum 2.x. Allowing for yum 2.x is just a nice side effect of fixing the actual problem (broken rpm). > avoid possible side-effects. Redhat didn't upgrade RH8's rpm over it's > lifetime... so they must have deemed it stable (or stable enough). Do Or, they knew that since they would EOL it shortly, why bother fixing it? > we... or should we... rock the boat just to get a newer version of yum? No, but we should rock the boat to help the project and project developers. My devel system (dual boot RH8 and RH9) is very broken now due to a corrupted rpm database caused by the buggy RPM in RH9. So, in order to develope for myself or FL I need to wipe out the system and re-install. This is a sever detriment to my development and to the project. Providing a stable rpm package that avoids database corruptions will help the project and its developers, and hence is worth rocking the boat. > Just my 2c ... this has been discussed to death already ;-) Yes, but people keep missing the point. It isn't about yum, it is about a buggy rpm package. -- Eric Rostetter
