Joao Paulo Pires wrote:
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:21:22 -0500
From: Jim Cornette <fc-cornette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: up2date vs. yum
Michael D. Berger wrote:
Which to use? The fedora web page recommends yum, and it sounds yummy,
but up2date blinks attractively.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
Thanks for your advice.
Mike.
--
Michael D. Berger
m.d.berger@xxxxxxxx
Yum is easy to control at the command line. Up2date is barely maintained
any longer. If you like the GUI type interface, pup in rawhide works
fairly well. Pup is pretty much the replacement for up2date. Pup works
with yum.
There are also a few GUI front-ends for yum. GNOME and KDE versions. The
front-ends work decent for the two that I tried before. Yum is my main
tool for updating. Pup for when I do not want or cannot update certain
packages that have conflicts. Yum plain sux when there are package
conflicts. Jim
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If Should Up2date is barely maintained, should I uninstall Up2date?
Best regards, Joao.
I would start using other updating utilities. Since you are comfortable
with up2date and how it works, keeping up2date until you learn another
updating tool would not hurt anything. Up2date is still in the
development repository and was rebuilt Jan 11, 2006. There has not been
any upgrades to up2date for FC4 since the FC version was released. I
believe the upgrades were only for compatibility with shared scripting
languages and shared libraries. I have not used up2date since installing
FC5T1, so I do not know if it is functional or broken.
I still use up2date on another system with FC4 because it serves its
purpose. It has advantages over yum when no network is installed. Of
course, using rpm directly would work as well on this no Internet
connection computer.
Jim
Jim
--
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity -- so UP yours, Microsoft!
