[Yum] Problem installing multiple rpms

Konstantin Riabitsev icon at phy.duke.edu
Fri Apr 11 14:45:42 UTC 2003

Tom Hines wrote:
> I agree with the transaction part, but that's an odd
> definition of update.  I agree with Eric.  I think the
> definition of update should be:
> A:
>   preconditions: None.
>   postconditions: I have the latest version.

This is not "update." This, moreover, will install a package if it 
hasn't been installed yet, seeing as you list preconditions as "None."

> B:
>   preconditions: I currently have an old version.
>   postconditions: I have the latest version.

That would be the definition of the word "update" in my vocabulary. 
Moreover, this is consistent with the way rpm proper handles it: 
"rpm -U foo.rpm bar.rpm" will fail if either foo or bar are the 
latest version.

> Why should I have to keep track of whether I have the
> latest version of a package?  That's not conducive to
> automation.

That's fine with me, but don't call it "update."

>  What if I wanted to add some logic in the script
> based on the return value of update?  It would be much
> easier if the definition of update was A.

That's questionable. I can think of plenty of examples where I would 
WANT for a set of packages to update atomically, or not at all.

> If yum is going to accept multiple packages for the
> update command as in 'yum update pkg1 pkg2 pkg3', then
> I think it should work as in A, because I would expect
> that afterward, I would have the latest version of all
> 3.  You know, Principle of Least Surprise, etc.

Really? You find it less surprising if "update" doesn't really update?

Konstantin ("Icon") Riabitsev
Duke University Physics Sysadmin

More information about the Yum mailing list