Better to use yum update psa?
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:30 am
Subject says it all, is it better to use yum update than to use the update tool within the CP?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:23 am
I always have less trouble with it, the autoupdater isn't really a dynamic package manager like yum.
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:49 pm
But yum won't get you a 'better' Plesk. If the autoinstaller or Plesk Updater is working fine for you, then that's fine too.
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:16 pm
It would get you the same plesk, with better dependency resolution and less trouble though.
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:43 pm
Ok, did my upgrade via yum and I'll have to say this was one of the easiest upgrades that I've done since the first 2 7 series. Nice and smooth.
One question on it however. I notice that in the CP under upgrade there are some that are flagged as needing to be upgraded still, like base packages, application vault, etc...
Does the DB just need a resync? Or are there updates that still need to be applied?
Thanks.
One question on it however. I notice that in the CP under upgrade there are some that are flagged as needing to be upgraded still, like base packages, application vault, etc...
Does the DB just need a resync? Or are there updates that still need to be applied?
Thanks.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:41 am
They literally put out an update yesterday, which I havent updated in the plesk channel yet. Right now the process is all manual, so theres some lag time.
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:09 pm
So, right now it might actually be a better idead to use the autoinstaller/Plesk Updater than yum. 
If only Parallels would just provide a yum repository for Plesk...
If only Parallels would just provide a yum repository for Plesk...
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:02 pm
Oh god no, remember that thing was my idea in the first place. And a bad one! We should have dropped it as soon as yum came out. We only created that because at the time, things like yum didn't exist.
The way it works, the whole dependency tree externally by a human being. So if you've got one single package thats newer than what is known in the database on the autoinstaller side, poof it breaks. It made sense to do it that way back in 2001/2002 because there really wasnt any other option.
For the uninitiated, Yum is a pro-active resolution system, it builds all its dependency trees automatically from the RPM information dynamically. Every time you add a package to the repo, the data is updated automatically.
The result is as you add more packages to the system from other sources (updates, dags, atr, atomic, etc) the higher the chance the autoinstaller will run into something it hasnt seen before (and fail)
The way it works, the whole dependency tree externally by a human being. So if you've got one single package thats newer than what is known in the database on the autoinstaller side, poof it breaks. It made sense to do it that way back in 2001/2002 because there really wasnt any other option.
For the uninitiated, Yum is a pro-active resolution system, it builds all its dependency trees automatically from the RPM information dynamically. Every time you add a package to the repo, the data is updated automatically.
The result is as you add more packages to the system from other sources (updates, dags, atr, atomic, etc) the higher the chance the autoinstaller will run into something it hasnt seen before (and fail)