On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Oisin Curtin wrote: > Andres Adrover Kvamsdal wrote: > > .. after Mitchell Marks griped about minimal documentation Honest, I didn't mean to be griping! And I think FL documentation is coming along okay ... I was suggesting a change of outlook about how yum or apt-get would be / could be / should be used, which would be reflected in the phrasing in the alert messages. [I said:] > >> I prefer to handle packages one-by-one, and would thus prefer to see > >> these > >> commands in the one-package form with the applicable package name. I probably was misusing the expression "one-by-one", which led Michal Jaegermann to chide me for apparently wanting to override dependencies. (Okay, maybe "chide" isn't right either!:) But I'm perfectly happy to have yum or apt-get point out dependencies, and suggest additions to the install, which generally I then accept. The only part of the yum or apt maintenance approach I'm being reluctant about is the all-at-once updates. (And taking this as the default.) I admit I've been lazy about tracking down information about using and maintaining an exceptions list for yum or apt-get. But we've got packages which (for three or four different reasons in different cases) should not be automatically updated. So for my situation, unless I buckle down and make an exceptions list and get it to be used, a general "yum update" is not a viable option. [Andres (or O. Curtin?) points out:] > Or just type `yum update packagename...` > frex: yum update scrollkeeper pxe Thanks. I mean it. And that's what I do, usually. My suggestion was that *that* form is what should be suggested in the messages about particular packages. So the netpbm message, say, should by my lights advise running yum update netpbm rather than yum update Why? (a) Believe it or not, sometimes I find it hard to locate or determine from the message what the right package name to use would be. Really! Not netpbm or most application-level packages, but something like glibc. (b) Parity with the way the messages treat the RPM URL approach. If the one-by-one outlook is okay for them, why not also for the yummies and apt-dwellers? BTW, thank you to both Andres and Michal for responding to my main original question, reflected in the continuing Subject line. We have a 7.2 and a 7.3, and would like to bring the updates process more into alignment between them, and it seemed that turning the 7.2 into a 7.3 would be a way to do that. We're holding off on it for the moment, however, while my managers decide on various other matters. I'd have to confess that I'm also hesitant about it for reason of some of the same 'one-by-one' concerns underlying my reluctance about all-at-once updating. We have things installed from tarball that would end up being rolled back if we ran update from the 7.3 CDs, it looks like. Thanks much, Mitch Marks -- Mitchell Marks CUIP & WIT Tech Coordinator CUIP: Chicago Public Schools / Univ. of Chicago Internet Project WIT: Web Institute for Teachers http://cuip.net/cuip http://tech.cuip.net/ http://wit.uchicago.edu/wit 5640 S Ellis Ave AAC-045, Univ of Chgo, Chgo IL 60637 Phones: Area 773 (O) 702-6041 (F) 702-8212 (H) 241-7166 (C) 620-6744 Email: Primary address: mitchell@xxxxxxxx Alternate UofC addresses (use especially to report problems with CUIP\WIT mail!): mitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and mmar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Off-campus (ISP) address: mmarks@xxxxxxxxx You must leave now, take what you need, you think will last. But whatever you wish to keep, you better grab it fast. Yonder stands your orphan with his gun, Crying like a fire in the sun. Look out!-- the saints are comin' through And it's all over now, Baby Blue. -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
