On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:05:38AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 15:03 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > o since yum 2.2 and yum 2.0 are not compatible, there will be a > > transition period for old vs new metadata. It would be nice to be > > able to install both old and new yum. What's the best way to go? > > Rename yum 2.0.x to "yumold"? > > why would you need both installed? See below. > > o should yum 2.2 perhaps become yum3 and be also called that way to > > indicate the major change and allow coexitence with yum 2.0.x w/o > > renaming yum 2.0.x? > > no. Why? And is this "no, no" or "<no answer>, no"? ;) I think bumping the version to 3.0 is more than justified (especially in relation to yum 1.x vs 2.x). Future distinction will be easier to make in yum 1, 2 and 3 eras. > > I am mainly thinking of the current yum repos that have yum 2.0.x > > clients deployed and will be migrating to the new metadata format, and > > will want to have a (rather) smooth transition (e.g. offer both > > formats and both clients and allow a grace period for the users to > > switch). > > yum-arch is available in yum 2.1.9 and above. I am not really concerned on the server-side, but more on the client-side. For example today's FC2 repos (or even RH7.3 repos like Fedora Legacy) may want to switch to the new metadata format. Offering both metadata formats on the server is not a real issue, but offering both clients for a transition period will be due to common naming. It would be nice to find a common way to deal with it (e.g. renaming yum 2.0.x to yum-2.0). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/attachments/20041019/497f95fd/attachment.bin
