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

[Liam Bedford]

Joseph Kiniry wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
yeah.. I mean, disk space is so cheap, we should all do an everything
install. I run apt by hand regularly to add packages that come to mind.
(I didn't know I was going to need dcraw this morning).

> 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.
> 
So, when the fedora guys do release a screwed up package, your machine
will get it that evening.

> 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.
Yeah.. conectiva.. full of 18 year old hackers. Not a kernel maintainer
among them. Shame on those nasty brazilians.

You're some wolly. Stop giving Americans a bad name.

L.