[Yum] Problem installing multiple rpms

[Konstantin Riabitsev]

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
www.phy.duke.edu/~icon/pubkey.asc