yum

Lennart Sorensen lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org
Thu Nov 1 14:01:34 UTC 2007


On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:23:00AM -0400, Chris Aitken wrote:
> I've hit a roadblock with trying to get iPod nano working under fedora 
> 7. The roadblock is that yum is broken. It points to repositories that 
> don't work. I can't ping the repositories - so it's not just yum - I 
> guess those repositories have been retired. I've asked several times in 
> the iPod thread if there is a working repository and how I can point yum 
> to it. I've had no response, so I'm starting a thread to ge my yum 
> working. I don't mind doing a little work but when I get no response I 
> don't know if that means I should go to another list, that list people 
> are out of ideas, yum cannot be fixed, people dislike troubleshooting or 
> that I'm being a pest and I should simply go away for a little while.
> 
> I saw a post from someone when I was googling this subject. He got sick 
> of yum breaking in rh/fedora and switched to debian. The post was 
> entitled 'apt-get delete fedora, apt-get install debian'. For all the 
> things I want to do, have I outgrown rh/fedora?
> 
> If I can get yum fixed I would rather stick with fedora. I have managed 
> (with your help) to get my system doing everything else I want it to 
> (ripping/burning to CD, recording in audacity, configured emu1212-m pci 
> soundcard, printing/printing across network, etc.).
> 
> I get it that you guys are working for nothing - and I have no doubt 
> that I'm one of the more frustrating guys to help. Thank you.

I think the only thing that seems at all frustrating, is just how broken
fedora seems to be in general.  Most of the problems you have had would
not have happened on debian (I have done most of them on my debian
system, and things just worked).  I started using debian in 1998, and it
wasn't pretty, but by 1999 I completely gave up on redhat and debian was
at that point clearly simpler to get to work and more reliable.  The
difference has only gotten bigger since.  In fact the harddrive I
installed debian 2.1 on in 1999 (and then proceeded to upgrade) is still
running in the same 486/66 at my parents place (being the
firewall/dhcp/dns server) and I just checked the S.M.A.R.T. data on the
drive yesterday, and it said power on hours of 6199.  Being clearly
wrong I investigated a bit and discovered the power on hours is a 16 bit
value and the correct number for the drive is actually 65536+6199 hours,
making for about 8.1 years of runtime on the drive.  I have never
reinstalled, so that drive had one debian install done on it ever and
has been upgraded ever since (and now runs debian 4.0) and still works
great.  I do think the bearings are starting to go on the poor drive
though, but I guess that's getting way off topic. :)

--
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists





More information about the Legacy mailing list