Re: another approach to what current does

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 04:31:03PM -0400, Hunter Matthews wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 16:18, Michael Redinger wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Jack Neely wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:57:18PM +0200, Alex Kramarov wrote:
> > > > The last email was all about telling me that current/RHN - db tried yum, and do not accept it as an acceptable platform for production use
> > > 
> > > I guess that's up to one's opinion but I've found yum to be quite stable 
> > > and work /very/ well.  In fact, I will most likely be switching the 
> > > Linux infrastructure here at NC State University to using yum.  
> > > Currently, we're using yup and its on its last legs.
> > > 
> > 
> > Ok, I'm getting really offtopic now ... I see the advantages of 
> > current/up2date, especially the potential (of the direction it is taking).
> > 
> > I'm just not convinced that I could use it in a production environment for
> > now.
> > (The fact that it doesn't work with the current beta release of Red Hat
> > Linux doesn't make it better ... other tools (eg. apt-get) are already
> > able to deal with that.)
> 
> RedHat has changed the API (as they would with any major release), but I
> don't want to modify to that API until they ship - They might well
> choose to change it again. 
> 
> That is the problem you face with any reverse engineerring effort.
> 
> More significantly in my mind is rpm 4.1. How/where did the api (esp the
> python api) change.
> 

Try <[email protected]> :-)

73 de Jeff

-- 
Jeff Johnson	ARS N3NPQ
[email protected] ([email protected])
Chapel Hill, NC