[CentOS] Why is yum not liked by some?

Johnny Hughes mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Thu Sep 8 21:24:44 UTC 2005


On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 16:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 14:30, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> 
> > I have to agree with someone else's post ... simple put (in
> > my own words) ...
> > 
> >   What is it that you don't understand about
> >   the "costs" of configuration management?
> 
> The part I don't understand is why the tool built for the
> purpose doesn't do what everyone needs it to do.  Is that
> simple enough?  Yes, I know I can build my own system.  I
> know there are workarounds.  I'd rather not. 

Yum is not designed for configuration management ... unless you want to
update to the latest releases in the repo.  In that case, it works
perfectly.

If you want to artificially place limits on the repo, (ie ... this is
stable, this is not) ... then you have to create your own repo.

When we release an update, it is considered stable by RedHat.  Up you
run up2date from RedHat, it will update you to the exact same versions
that you get from CentOS.

I am not understanding what your issue with the repos or the tool is.

Yum update works exactly like up2date -u from RHEL ... you update
something and it is updated.

> 
> > > Compare it to how you get a set of consistent updates from
> > > a cvs repository where someone has tagged the 'known good'
> > > states as the changes were added.
> > 
> > Who says you can_not_ just use RCS/CVS/Subversions to track
> > changes to your test system's RPM database and feed those
> > into YUM ... HMMMMMM?!?!?! (hint, hint, hint, big-@$$ hint
> 
> I could keep rolling my own tarballs like I used to also.  The
> question is why everyone who is responding thinks it is a
> good thing or at least expected that a new system designed
> to manage packages does not do the simple and needed thing
> that cvs has always done to make it possible to make updates
> consistent and repeatable out of a changing repository.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050908/62cb5d28/attachment.bin


More information about the CentOS mailing list