[CentOS] differences between yum update and yum check-update

Johnny Hughes mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Thu May 4 18:57:10 UTC 2006

On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 19:28 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> yum check-update:
> clamav.i386             0.88.1-1.el4.kb        kbs-CentOS-Extra
> clamav-data.i386        0.88.1-1.el4.kb        kbs-CentOS-Extra
> clamav-lib.i386         0.88.1-1.el4.kb        kbs-CentOS-Extra
> clamav-update.i386      0.88.1-1.el4.kb        kbs-CentOS-Extra
> yum update:
> Installing:
>  clamav-db     i386       0.88.2-1.el4.rf  rpmforge          4.0 M
>      replacing  clamav-update.i386 0.88-1.el4.kb
> Updating:
>  clamav        i386       0.88.1-1.el4.kb  kbs-CentOS-Extras  545 k
>  clamav-lib    i386       0.88.1-1.el4.kb  kbs-CentOS-Extras  143 k
> Updating for dependencies:
>  clamav-data   i386       0.88.1-1.el4.kb  kbs-CentOS-Extras  3.4 M
> The installed clam rpms on this machine are from kbs-CentOS-Extras (which 
> is protected=1 while rpmforge/dag is not!)

I think it should be:

(for kbs)


(for dag)

Also ... did you remember to add plugins=1 to your /etc/yum.conf file.

Details for protectbase here:

> I think not only should the replacement not happen if the replaced 
> rpm/repo is protected, there should also be no difference between update 
> and check-update! A bug in yum?
> Kai
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060504/14391483/attachment.sig>

More information about the CentOS mailing list