On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 10:11 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote: > 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? Is up2date the porsche in this analogy? > 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. rhel doesn't break compatibility. That's why it is so much more stable. -sv -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
