Mobeen Azhar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I installed a RH 6.1 box and upgraded the kernel and modules stuff to
> 6.2 by following the Kernel update howto. [......]
> It seems that the FTP sites that it checks are very slow and after
> going through some RPMS, autorpm bombs.
> Has anyone gotten autorpm to work consistently?
If the sites that autorpm checks are slow or unreliable, go into
/etc/autorpm.d/autorpm.conf and /etc/autorpm.d/pools* and point it to more
reliable mirrors. A list of mirrors exists at
http://www.redhat.com/mirrors.html. Find a few that suit your needs
best and tell autorpm to try to use those first. You can tell it to
use Redhat 6.2 updates in this file, if you really insist.
> I noticed that even though I upgraded my kernel and modules to the 6.2
> versions, autorpm still went looking under the 6.1 directory on the ftp
> sites from which it gets it's updates.
That's because you pretty much still have Redhat 6.1:
'cat /etc/redhat-release' :)
> I FTP'ed to ftp.redhat.com and found that the number of RPMs is much
> greater under the 6.1 directory than it is under the 6.2
> directory.
Redhat 6.1 has been out since 10/1999, so more updates are available. All
of X-Windows, Gnome, etc...
Redhat 6.2 incorporates the fixes to Redhat 6.1 and goes from there. It
makes _sense_ that fewer updates are available for 6.2.
Just because you upgraded the kernel from 6.1 to the one in 6.2 hardly
means that you're running Redhat 6.2. For example, you're still using an
old(er) XFree86, slightly different glibc, GNOME, etc...
You have Redhat 6.1 with a newer kernel. That's it. I'm running the
latest 2.4.0-test* kernel here. Does that mean I'm functionally running
Redhat 7.0? No. I simply have Redhat 6.2 with a pre-2.4 kernel.
So it's *entirely appropriate* that autorpm send you Redhat 6.1 updates.
Generally speaking, security updates are provided for all all Redhat
releases to which they are applicable. There's no penalty for sticking
with 6.1, in other words, at least in regards to updates. I think 6.2 is,
out of the box, much better though.
> This is starting to be frustrating. Coming from a FreeBSD world I think
> I got spoiled with the cvsup mechanism and the fast and responsive
> ftp.freebsd.org!!!
I can half-saturate a 10Mb network connection to metalab.unc.edu, for
example. That's _not_ terrible. Just because ftp.redhat.com is hammered
doesn't mean that you don't have many other choices. Find a mirror that
suits and use it. They exist.
Admittedly, there are many broken 3rd-party contributed RPM's, because
some RPM builders don't follow the rules for consistent 'dependencies' and
'provides' lists, among other things. Debian and FreeBSD enforce the
rules better, the packages are made available in a more centralized and
organized and controlled manner. I think Redhat could learn from these
efforts.
I find RPM to be a very nice way of packaging software. It's well thought
out, organized and documented. It's particularly nice when you are using
low end hardware for which the notion of compiling packages from CVS
source is not an option. Or if you prefer not to answer a billion
questions when upgrading packages -- you'd rather that the _packages_
themselves contain the intelligence necessary to install themselves
appropriately. RPM seems to provide this to a reasonable degree. It's not
perfect, but it's quite competent. IMHO, of course. :)
Craig Kulesa
Steward Observatory
University of Arizona
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
