Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 19:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:I dont think multi libs is specific to RH. can you clarify that specifically?
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 19:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Mark Haney wrote:
I had that impression through previous discussions related to it in Fedora devel list and the fact the issues like multilib is/was there for a long timeHe just has released a new release, a couple of weeks ago.
Yes, apt still is not able to handle RH multilibs.
Well, 95% of the issues wrt. upgrading RHL/FC are packaging bugs. These
affect all upgrading tools, such as up2date, apt, yum, smart and
anaconda.
well if you know of specific issues you could file them against specific packages or if you can suggest any specific procedures to follow that improve the packaging process, I am pretty sure a discussion could be started on Fedora devel
So far, I have been able to successfully upgrade my systems from RH-8.0 through FC3. All experiments to do the same with yum, so far have failed or had proven to perform unacceptable.
Well I have personally managed to do that so its possible though it might not work for all scenarios
Don't get me wrong, IMO, yum is gradually improving and has evolved to acceptable shape as far as "keeping systems up2date" is concerned, but it is still at least one magnitude behind apt elsewhere.
It would be fair to allow a chance for the yum developers to respond to these issues. So a post to the fedora devel or yum lists would be appropriate
I prefer a tool that refuses to remove packages in case of conflicts (yum/apt), others wondered why "this'n'that" packages suddenly vanished.
Ralf
Yes. I would agree with that. we had a user complaining about it pretty recently in Fedora devel
regards Rahul
