seth vidal wrote: >>Ah. The docs have changed since pkgpolicy=last was introduced, or I >>have a poor memory. Probably the latter...especially since I've >>'luckily' had alphabetized config files for the past several months, and >>so things have worked mostly the way I thought they should. >> >>Ok, if I consider these things wrong behavior, will a patch that adds an >>additional choice that makes yum behave the way I would expect on both >>counts be accepted? And should I call it "last-and-I-really-mean-it"? ;-) > > > I don't understand - once you know how yum sorts the server list how is > this behavior not working as expected. > > If you think you're going to get configparser to spit back the sections > in the "physically" last order in the file you're dreaming. Ah. configparser issue. Ok, I can live with that, and will dream no more. More important to me, though, is for the last repository in the list to trump all earlier repositories (alphabetical is OK...I've been doing it this long and it hasn't hurt me none). It kind of botches the way I'm using yum for it to work this way when installing new packages, but when replacing and existing package it keeps the 'newer' one based on version or epoch. I suppose I could rethink my package versioning and the way I'm using yum, to include epochs to force this kind of behavior at the package level. I fear that way will lead to madness...I have a multi-tiered method of deploying software and bundles of software, and it makes my head hurt to think of some way to epoch this without breaking previous deployments. And epochs make me itchy. I don't like packages getting uppity with me and acting all newer than one that I can clearly see has a more recent version number. ;-) I'll go sit in the corner quietly for a while and figure out how I want to do things. It just confused me when yum didn't act the way I always thought it did. Thanks for the clarifications. -- Joe Cooper <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Web caching appliances and support. http://www.swelltech.com
