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

Johnny Hughes mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Thu May 4 22:06:00 UTC 2006

On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 21:43 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote on Thu, 04 May 2006 13:57:10 -0500:
> > I think it should be: 
> >  
> > (for kbs) 
> > protect=1 
> >  
> > and 
> >  
> > (for dag) 
> > protect=0 
> ahm, yes, of course, I typed that from memory, just a typo.
> >  
> > Also ... did you remember to add plugins=1 to your /etc/yum.conf file.
> It's all okay, protectbase *does* work, (proven by the fact that the 
> rpmforge clam package - 0.88.2 - doesn't try to upgrade the kbs-extras 
> package - 0.88.1 - ) but not in this case! It seems the replace/obsoletes 
> or whatever is in the rpmforge package overrides the protect. And even if 
> it didn't work it wouldn't explain the difference between check-update and 
> update. That should always be the same. If yum shows something different 
> when doing check-update than what it is then actually going to do I can't 
> rely on check-update (and protect in this case).
> Anyone has clam from kbs-extras installed and not yet upgraded?
> Kai
It is a replacement and not an upgrade that is causing the issue ... kbs
(it seems) doesn't have clamav-db.

So it seems that clamav-db gets to be installed, since it is not
protected.  Installing it causes something else to get removed (which
should be protected) ... but that happens after the initial
calculations, and it seems protectbase is not working on that set.

I am sure this is a protectbase plugin issue and not a yum issue.
Though it should be consistent between check-update adn update.

What you can do is:


in the Dag/RPMforge repos
-------------- 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/20060504/3cc82908/attachment.sig>

More information about the CentOS mailing list