[ILUG] Re: yum and apt gurus, please read

[Joseph Kiniry]

On 3 May, 2005, at 10:30, John Looney wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 01:05, Paul Jakma wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2005, Philip Trickett (List) wrote:
>>
>>> Why would that be then?
>>
>> Yum is *dog* slllloooooooooowwwwww....
>
>  Ah, quit bitching. I installed CentOS 3.0 on a Raq3, and a "yum 
> update"
> took 30 hours to complete. Now that's slow.

If you are running yum by hand frequently then you are doing something 
wrong in the first place.

Wrt your earlier stability complaint Paul, you might not that an 
apology was issued by the Fedora crew this weekend over the borked i386 
Perl released on AMD64.

I have yet to have a problem with yum and I just have it automatically 
update my system every night unless a very high priority security 
update is made available that I feel needs to be installed in minutes 
instead of hours.

I also use apt and fink on other systems where those are the default 
meta-package manager.  IMO, one should use what is reliable, keeps your 
system patched, and is low maintenance.  Often times that is what is 
shipped with the OS, not what is grafted on by 18 year old hackers 
after-the-fact.

Joe