On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Matthias Saou wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:25:55PM -0700, Samuel Flory wrote:
> > > Is seeing something like apt-get out of the question?
> >
> > In fact it's one of our highest priorities; people are arguing about
> > apt vs. yum but there will definitely be stuff along these lines.
>
> For what it's worth, we've been using autoupdate quite happily for a
> coupl of years now; see:
>
>
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~gerald/ftp/autoupdate/index.html
>
> We used apt in the past, but IMHO it wasn't as good as autoupdate.
> Haven't checked out yum at all.
Then do check out yum : It has the ease of use that autoupdate has, trivial
package signature checking like autoupdate has, but uses rpmlib and the
actual package headers to calculate updates, so it doesn't miss the
"Obsoletes:" tags nor the epoch increases... like autoupdate does.
Do you use autoupdate-5.x? Also, obsoletes tags have been supported for a
long time now, I think..
Newer versions handle the more difficult cases with "autoinfo" files which
include all the information (such as epochs etc.).
Autoupdate also includes perl-RPM bindings which make it a bit more
robust.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings