Konstantin Riabitsev: >If updating a package has failed (the latest version is installed), then the transaction should fail. I agree with the transaction part, but that's an odd definition of update. I agree with Eric. I think the definition of update should be: A: preconditions: None. postconditions: I have the latest version. and not: B: preconditions: I currently have an old version. postconditions: I have the latest version. Why should I have to keep track of whether I have the latest version of a package? That's not conducive to automation. >My only objection to that is whether it >is prudent to increase the complexity of yum's code for a result >that can be achieved using a one-liner in shell: > >for PKG in pkg1 pkg2 pkg3; do yum -y update $PKG; done That's fine, but I would still expect update to return true if I already had the latest version of a package. What if I wanted to add some logic in the script based on the return value of update? It would be much easier if the definition of update was A. If yum is going to accept multiple packages for the update command as in 'yum update pkg1 pkg2 pkg3', then I think it should work as in A, because I would expect that afterward, I would have the latest version of all 3. You know, Principle of Least Surprise, etc. Just my opinion. Regards, Tom Hines __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
