Does/will Yast online update support HTTP (or at least http proxy)? As ftp is a weird protocol anyway, I don't think it should be used so much, especially for important things like updates. I have some servers behind an MS Proxy Server and can't use online update, because yast doesn't support any proxy, and socksify + bouncer on a machine with MS Proxy client installed doesn't work, too (http/ssh works thoug). And once again, why is YOU not half as cool as apt-get ?? thanks Markus -- _____________________________ /"\ Markus Gaugusch ICQ 11374583 \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign markus@gaugusch.at X Against HTML Mail / \
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Markus Gaugusch wrote:
Does/will Yast online update support HTTP (or at least http proxy)?
As ftp is a weird protocol anyway, I don't think it should be used so much, especially for important things like updates. I have some servers behind an MS Proxy Server and can't use online update, because yast doesn't support any proxy, and socksify + bouncer on a machine with MS Proxy client installed doesn't work, too (http/ssh works thoug). And once again, why is YOU not half as cool as apt-get ??
Perhaps you want to set up your own apt server for your favourite RPMs? As you said apt-get supports http (with/without proxy) and was ported to support RPM packages by conectiva. There is a project at sf, that makes setup of an apt server quite easy. Feel free to have a look at: apt4rpm.sf.net ... and join the apt4rpm club. It really rocks :-)
thanks Markus
Ciao, Marcel
-- _____________________________ /"\ Markus Gaugusch ICQ 11374583 \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign markus@gaugusch.at X Against HTML Mail / \
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help@suse.com
Does/will Yast online update support HTTP (or at least http proxy)?
We are working on http support.
As ftp is a weird protocol anyway, I don't think it should be used so much, especially for important things like updates. I have some servers behind an MS Proxy Server and can't use online update, because yast doesn't support any proxy, and socksify + bouncer on a machine with MS Proxy client installed doesn't work, too (http/ssh works thoug). And once again, why is YOU not half as cool as apt-get ??
Feel free to use it.
thanks Markus
Thanks,
Roman.
--
- -
| Roman Drahtmüller
* Roman Drahtmueller wrote on Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 14:02 +0100:
Does/will Yast online update support HTTP (or at least http proxy)?
We are working on http support.
Hum; is SuSE reinventing the wheel and implements an own FTP client? Couldn't you just use wget or a similar tool? BTW: Is YOU meant for servers or for desktops only? I just gave it a quick view (wasn't working :)), my fault I think, but it seems to delete downloaded RPMs after installation. oki, Steffen -- Dieses Schreiben wurde maschinell erstellt, es trägt daher weder Unterschrift noch Siegel.
On Wednesday 30 January 2002 09:42, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
* Roman Drahtmueller wrote on Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 14:02 +0100:
Does/will Yast online update support HTTP (or at least http proxy)?
We are working on http support.
Hum; is SuSE reinventing the wheel and implements an own FTP client? Couldn't you just use wget or a similar tool?
And rpm itself supports ftp proxies.
BTW: Is YOU meant for servers or for desktops only? I just gave it a quick view (wasn't working :)), my fault I think, but it seems to delete downloaded RPMs after installation.
It only does that if you have 'Remove source-packages after update' option checkbox ticked on the Online Update Confirmation dialog. I do find that option poorly named as 'source-packages' to me, makes me think of source rpm's not the binary packages that you install. If you never delete and just leave the rpms you'll find /var/lib/YaST will get very large with updated rpm's after a while. Rob
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Robert Davies wrote:
It only does that if you have 'Remove source-packages after update' option checkbox ticked on the Online Update Confirmation dialog. I do find that option poorly named as 'source-packages' to me, makes me think of source rpm's not the binary packages that you install.
If you never delete and just leave the rpms you'll find /var/lib/YaST will get very large with updated rpm's after a while.
I wish it would place the RPMs into a directory structure that it can use itself. I'd like to run YOU on one machine, then bring up an FTP server on that machine, and be able to run YOU on all the other machines on the LAN locally. ...and I agree with the other poster, I would like to see YOU reference the rpm database, so that packages updated with YOU and with YAST are not duplicated. I really applaud the decision several releases ago to integrate the update packages by symlink into the /current/ tree. So an FTP install is truly current from the get-go. But when I run YOU, it immediately wants to re-download some packages I just installed! Rick Green
I really applaud the decision several releases ago to integrate the update packages by symlink into the /current/ tree. So an FTP install is truly current from the get-go. But when I run YOU, it immediately wants to re-download some packages I just installed!
You are not wholly correct here. I don't think I mentioned this since it wasn't part of the security problem, but I trashed my MySQL installation and had to remove it and then do an ftp install with yast. I was surprised to find that the packages yast installed were old ones, and I had to run YOU to update them again. Once I got to thinking about that I decided that was probably a feature, not a bug, in case there was some reason you _had_ to use the older version. ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson System Administrator Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com
You are not wholly correct here. I don't think I mentioned this since it wasn't part of the security problem, but I trashed my MySQL installation and had to remove it and then do an ftp install with yast. I was surprised to find that the packages yast installed were old ones, and I had to run YOU to update them again.
Why is this a surprise? This was always the case. A distribution tree is comparable to a CD. If you install from CD, you have to upgrade your installation as well.
Once I got to thinking about that I decided that was probably a feature, not a bug, in case there was some reason you _had_ to use the older version.
It's neither of them. You install a distribution, then you apply the patches. Roman.
At 06:41 PM 1/30/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Why is this a surprise?
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, I just assumed that any "bad" package would be replaced by it's update in the FTP tree. As I said, once I got to thinking about it, it made sense.
This was always the case. A distribution tree is comparable to a CD. If you install from CD, you have to upgrade your installation as well.
Once I got to thinking about that I decided that was probably a feature, not a bug, in case there was some reason you _had_ to use the older version.
It's neither of them. You install a distribution, then you apply the patches.
That's fine, though it *could* be done either way, I think. After all, there's not technical reason the updates couldn't be integrated into the FTP tree if that's what SuSE wanted to do, is there? Maybe there is, I don't know and don't particularly care, but I can't think of any. Jonathan Wilson System Administrator Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com
** On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:42:16 +0100 Steffen Dettmer
participants (9)
-
Emmerich Eggler -
jfweber＠bellsouth.net -
JW -
Marcel Ritter -
Markus Gaugusch -
Rick Green -
Robert Davies -
Roman Drahtmueller -
Steffen Dettmer