Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: At 06:17 6/8/2004, Trond Are Haugland wrote:
>>dsyates wrote: > >>>>up2date still sucks. (yes. I know yum works fine) > >> >>I don't understand, up2date has worked perfectly for me in both >>Fedora Core 1 & 2. In what way does it suck for you?
>Agreed. I have only used yum so far on a system which is RHL-7.3 and
>updating from Fedora Legacy. All my other systems use up2date and work
>beautifully... in particular I now appreciate the -k option which lets >me point to a local directory, and the ability to put local directories >also >in /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources. Please provide more detail on its >perceived "suckiness" for you.
Up2date sucks less than it did in FC1; but I still experience seemingly random unresponsiveness. I appreciate the fact that that it handles mirror sites better. I guess my gripe with up2date are aimed more at the gui functionality of the program. It does do a good job of notifying me when updates are needed; but a good 20% of the time, it's plum miserable at retrieving them. I only use yum for that now. On a related topic, I like apt better than yum, but I am using yum instead, hoping it will grow on me. In hind site maybe "sucks" is too strong a word. I just wish up2date worked better. A google search on "up2date sucks" "2004" yields 22 results :-)
-- David S. Yates LPIC-1 Linux Certified http://lottalinuxlinks.com blog: http://lottalinuxlinks.com/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/
