[CentOS] yum vs up2date

Johnny Hughes mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Wed Sep 6 03:48:50 UTC 2006


On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 08:35 +0800, John Summerfied wrote:
> Which is better? Why?
> 
> I know yum is the official update mechanism here and in Fedora Core, but 
> that doesn't make yum better than up2date any more than Windows NT was 
> better than OS/2.
> 
> Let's try to keep the discussion objective:-)
> 
> I'm asking, hoping for some insights into why RH might (apparently) be 
> moving to yum in preference to up2date (yum is now used within Anaconda).
> 
> Other than general discussion, I'd also like to know what I'd muss by 
> using up2date on CentOS.
> 
> I'll start with this:
> What has yum  that provides this functionality:
> up2date -d -u

The up2date that is used in CentOS is not like the up2date for RHN ...
it is in fact a bastardized version of old (2.0.x) yum repos.  There are
backend repos that are not nearly as polished as RHN for yum and repomd
in up2date.  The up2date for RHN is as good as yum ... however the
up2date using yum repos is not nearly as good.  For example, obsoletes
did not work until we fixed it in the 4.4 update.

I am currently working on the yum-plugin-downloadonly to address that
specific issue.

Up2date also can not use the mirrorlist option which provides 10 GeoIP
based mirrors that failover based on (if you install the fastestmirror
plugin) speed.

Up2date does not have protectbase or priorities capability.

Up2date does not have a GUI capability like yumex.

yum is MUCH better than up2date for CentOS.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes
-------------- 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/20060905/7c2fab42/attachment.bin


More information about the CentOS mailing list