On 8/5/05, Liloulinx <alilou_linux@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Paul Howarth wrote: > > > akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 09:29:20AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > >> > >>> I use FC2, so the question is resolved for me. But I suppose > >>> I'll eventually go to a later version. While it was available > >>> for me, I used up2date, with the little icon on the "taskbar" > >>> (or whatever it's called in FC). I had no problems with it. > >>> In fact, it appears to be a GUI to yum. > >>> > >>> So, why do I see messages here promoting yum over up2date? > >>> IOW, what advantage does yum have for someone simply wanting > >>> to update his packages? > >>> > >>> Mike > >> > >> > >> It is a matter of taste. Since you have discovered it is really the > >> same program I would choose the on that suits your temperament. > > > > > > up2date and yum are not the same program. At least, they weren't up > > until FC4. In FC4, up2date calls python modules from yum to handle > > repomd style sources (which are the default for FC4). The code for > > handling other types of repos (e.g. RHN channels, apt, old-style yum > > [pre FC4]) is entirely separate code. > > > > The best reason for using yum in FC4 is that it works more reliably > > than up2date. > > > > Paul. > > > > But I think that to upgrade from FC3 (or FC2) to FC4, 'yum upgrade' > generate some problems. 'Up2date' I think it doesn't have this problem > (I haven't tested it yet!!!). What do you think about? > --- > Liloulinx (http://freealilou/free.fr) > Up through FC3 up2date is/was a working utility. The revamped version for FC4 is broken and needs repair. Since the latest version is based upon yum libraries this begs the question: "Why not just use yum?"
