[lug] glibc and yum update woes

[D. Stimits]

Collins Richey wrote:
> On 8/27/05, D. Stimits <stimits at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>Well, through a judicious use of yum erase and --nodeps on glibc 2.3.90
>>(this made me really nervous, I thought I'd never do this), I got rid of
>>some of those problems and used yum update to get all of my glibc
>>working via yum. I'm still a bit disgusted that they'd put something
>>like gqview on fedora-extras as an update that requires a dependency not
>>available on any of the fedora servers.
>>
> 
> 
> Well, you did realize that FC is not designed to be a stable platform
> but rather a platform for experimentation, right? You've put yourself

Not true...fedora has both a stable and devel branch. Although fedora is 
where redhat gets its slower evolving changes, it's fairly stable as 
long as you don't get the devel stuff. I have no money for SuSE, debian 
would be tempting if not for its slow adoption of things that really are 
stable, mandrake is just a variation of redhat for the desktop, but I'd 
pay money for a properly boxed set. Gentoo is fast, but I want to 
develop code to distribute, so I need popular distros, and gentoo still 
is nowhere near as popular as fedora/suse/debian/mandriva.

> on the [bleeding|leading] edge of RH development. That being said, did
> you report what you found as a bug?

Something Kevin mentioned in his reply (which I have yet to reply to, 
looking at things as I figure this out) helped me figure out just what 
happened. I was using non-bleeding/non-leading edge fedora, and the 
files in question are a result of a cron job running yum in the middle 
of experimenting with it (more to follow in reply to Kevin's email). But 
overall, I don't consider fedora leading/bleeding edge if I stay away 
from the test packages and use the stable releases. Right now there are 
only two other distros that would really tempt me as replacement to 
fedora, one of which I already use on other machines: KRUD. The option 
of using debian is always in my mind, but I find some of their updates 
slower than what I like...the real reason I was running this test 
install of FC4 was in fact because FC2 had not adapated the newer mysql 
4 and still used 3. There were a few other packages I was beginning to 
see which did not have FC2 rpm's available, add that with the desire to 
see mysql 4, and I ended up with FC4.

D. Stimits, stimits AT comcast DOT net