[ATrpms-users] Re: yum20 (was: Recent update of yum for FC2 on at-stable breaks FC2 update system)

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 09:12:20PM +0100, Fritz Elfert wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:01:25 +0100 Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net> wrote:
> > Indeed. Aren't you glad there is yum20 and apt? ;)
> 
> Well, point is: Something like this shouldn't happen with a so called
> 'stable' repo as any unattended nightly update renders yum unusable until
> further manual fix.

The yum20 update was there for weeks and was automatically upgrading
yum.

I have many requests to offer yum > 2.0 on FC2, if you have a better
suggestion, let me know. I had asked to call the new yum yum3 to avoid
such situations, but there wasn't enough backup for that.

> Taking Seth's reply to your question into account, it seems clear
> that everything < FC2 should stick to yum 2.0 and you should
> reconsider taking 2.1 out of atrpms repos.

Seth himself assured that he had taken care of "all major repos" in
FC2 time:

https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/2004-October/005469.html:
> > It's ensuring that the client side will work, and also that it
> > won't break all repos. If freshrpms upgrades yum to yum-2.1.x or
> > yum-2.2, a lot of freshrpms users will find that their other "old"
> > yum repos are dead, and they won't have a handle to use them.
> 
> Except that I went around to all of the major repository maintainers
> and in most cases convinced them to run createrepo on their
> repositories.

As you noted it make no sense if the base repo is not offering yum
support. So I went in good faith, I guess ...
-- 
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.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20041204/aeb81111/attachment.bin