[CentOS] Why is yum not liked by some?

[Mike McCarty]

Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 20:19, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
>>Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>>>solve this problem.  Are you going to tell the community that this is an
>>>unsolvable problem?
> 
> 
>>No, I am not. Already, several people, myself included, have given
>>a way for you to accomplish what you seem to want.
> 
> 
> Well, first, Les and I are not the same person, and what Les wants and what 
> I'd like to see are two different but related things.  I believe that 

Oops. Sorry. I should have checked the attributions more carefully.

[snip]

> What is relevant is that I have seen the end user's response to having to 
> download multiple megabytes for a hundred byte or less change.  While it 
> doesn't bother me, it did bother my users (speaking of the PostgreSQL users I 
> built and released packages for).
> 
> So the enduser potentially could reap the best benefit of a rpmdelta system.  
> SuSE is or has been doing rpmdeltas for a year now, and I seem to recall that 
> the results were pretty good.
> 
> Les wanted similar to CVS functionality where you can tag a repository as 
> consistent at a certain branch (not necessarily by date, as you mentioned), 
> and be able to consistently grab a set of packages. 

Yes, that is what Les seems to want to happen, though he argues that he
does not.

> I mentioned CVS worked on a diff principle, and that that might be an 
> interesting way of doing it (all the while thinking about my PostgreSQL 
> users). Maybe I confused the two issues; possible.
> 
> The dumb client glorified webserver type system will be very difficult to make 
> work this we, this is true.  But who says we have to stick to a glorified 
> wget?  But the key question is, cost-benefit analysis-wise, is it worth the 
> effort (both development and execution)?  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  But I 
> do believe it is worth a try, if only to help the enduser (which could be a 
> small server at a parish library, for instance.... :-)). 

AFAIK, no one has made the claim that yum is capable of doing the job of
making named (some would say tagged) versions of release, nor has anyone
suggested that we must remain with yum.

I have pointed out that, in my experience, the degree of cooperation 
needed to create a consistent unified release package is difficult to 
achieve in a single corporation, let alone given the way Linux is handled.

I agree that what you suggest would be worthwhile. That's why there are
people who make money doing it. An example is the LynxOs corporation.
Other names come to mind.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!