On 11/9/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Craig White</b> <<a href="mailto:craigwhite@azapple.com">craigwhite@azapple.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 11:38 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:<br>> On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 06:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:<br>><br>> > > Ok. Logged in under FC4 and doing a 511Meg yum update now.<br>> > > I DO have the old fateful FC3 yum log. Can't copy it here yet (my nfs
<br>> > > mounts not working yet on the new fc4 upgraded server).<br>> > > But one line of the log reads "installing mysql 3.x"). [Which it<br>> > > didn't. Just dl'd the RPM's.]<br>> > > And after that, two lines: 1. "erased mysql server". 2. "erased mysql
<br>> > > client".<br>> > > If this ain't a bug, what is?<br>> ><br>> > If its a bug it should be in bugzilla. File it along with the yum log<br>> > output. You can also post to the yum devel list if it requires further
<br>> > discussions<br>> ><br>> > <a href="http://linux.duke.edu/projects/yum/">http://linux.duke.edu/projects/yum/</a><br>><br>> But whose bug is it when a distro package tries and fails to replace
<br>> some non-standard package that isn't even split into the same RPMs?<br>----<br>it falls back upon the user who passed the '-y' to the yum update<br>command which afforded the user no opportunity to review the changes to
<br>be made.<br><br>Craig<br><br></blockquote></div>-y
is ok if yum works correctly. Suppose yum automatically overwrote the
kernel with 2.0, and rebooted your machine (just an example, I know!),
is it still the user's fault for using -y?<br>
Anyhow, I am still using yum, just -y uh-uh.<br>
<br>
[btw]Thanks to everyone on this thread.<br>
-nat<br>