On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:16:09PM -0600, Greg Ennis wrote:
>
> Would you please point me in the right direction as to whether yum or up2date should
> be used for FC1.
Since you are asking stick with up2date.
> I have looked in the archives and have not been able to figure out
> the pros and cons of each. I presume that up2date downloads from
> RedHat and yum from one of the FC1 mirror sites. I never had any
> difficulty using up2date on RH 7.1 and 8.0 systems, but using it on
> FC1 is difficult because it stops about every third file that is
> downloaded.
FC1 updates suffer for want of bandwidth. Since it is 'free' it is up
to the community to mirror the updates and distribute the bandwidth
expense and load. Thus we need to point our chosen tool at a mirror.
The FC1 web page does discuss mirrors, but could be more cookbookish.
Look in the archives of this list for clues on how to translate the mirror
list on fedora.redhat.com into yum (see: /etc/yum.conf) or up2date
(see: /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources) configuration file changes.
IMO: Both need a config-mirror option.
Here is the RH mirror page URL:
http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors.html
> Sure would appreciate some information about the differences between
> these.
The reverse may prove simpler.
Both use "rpm" to install packages.
Both can use "yum" repositories (mirror sites).
Both can use "http" repositories.
Both can use "ftp" repositories (small open bug in rhn for ftp).
Both can be run from a command line.
Once you configure good mirrors up2date will do what your fingers and
mind already know how to do. So you should stick with up2date.
Suggestion: install both; use only up2date; if up2date breaks you could
use yum with default settings (or a web browser, or ftp) to fix up2date ;-)
There are other update tools too.
--
T o m M i t c h e l l
/dev/null the ultimate in secure storage.
