On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:36 AM, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 00:43 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote: > > >> Yes, we've established where we are now, but we need a path to be >> better off in the the future. Heck even RHEL "up2date" is able to >> update itself first, *and* be certain it will work afterwards. > > umm. No it isn't. > > up2date is in no better state than yum. It's in the same language using > very similar calls. So, if I steal the tires off a Porsche and put them on my Chevy Aveo, my car will work just as well? On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 00:43 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote: >> >> Yes, we've established where we are now, but we need a path to be >> better off in the the future. Heck even RHEL "up2date" is able to >> update itself first, *and* be certain it will work afterwards. > > Actually that fails more times than it works from what I hear. My *experience* says otherwise. Yes, I realize there are well over 100 open up2date bugs. However, I have several RHEL systems on which I run up2date monthly from cron, and often interactively using X, and I can't recall the last time I had a problem. It would have been at least a year ago. Whereas, with yum and Fedora, versions 10 and 11 especially, updates fail much more often. Honestly, this is just worrying me that we throw the "yum update yum\* rpm\*" answer to each problem, without an eye on the bigger prize (or prizes) - stability, consistency, ease of use, and so on. The work done on the graphical and system tray front-ends, fantastic that it is, becomes moot in a flash when updates fail. jerry -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
