upgrading individual pkgs with URPMI [solved]

[yr2alex]

Hello all,

 

Just a quick question, is there a way to upgrade an individual package using the URPMI utility? For example, I want to upgrade Mozilla Firefox from version 1.0.3 to the latest 1.0.4, what option would I use with URPMI in order to accomplish this?

 

TIA

yr2alex

 

[moved from Installing Mandrake by spinynorman]

[polemicz]

If there is an rpm you could download it to a directory and set up a local repository and urpmi from there. Unless you are using cooker you are limited to 1.0.2 in the official repositories. I have a few rpms that I have in a local directory that I use. Generally Red Hat rpms will work with Mandriva, but you do need to be careful. My local is set up with urpmi.addmedia local//:path to local directory.

[rolf]

You can use the full path to an rpm as the argument to urpmi. If a dependency is in one of your urpmi sources, it will be installed automatically. If any dependencies are not in urpmi sources and need to be downloaded locally, the paths to those rpms can be added to the command in a space-separated list.

# urpmi /path/to/package1.rpm /path/to/package2.rpm /path/to/package3.rpm

[yr2alex]

Thanks. I had come to the same conclusion after having read the help files, man pages and other on line documentation. However, I wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything that perhaps I may have overlooked. While on the subject of package management, Apt-Get does provide the upgrade feature that I was looking for in URPMI. Connectiva was the distro responsible for porting apt to rpm (which by the way has worked very well on my Fedora box to date). I mention this in light of Mandrake's recent aquisition of Connectiva, hence Mandriva. My question is, and I'm sure someone else has probably asked it before, Will Mandriva some day incorporate Apt-Get in the O.S.? URPMI is good, but because it is not as mature as Apt-Get it lacks some of the features that make Apt-Get so robust.

 

P.S. thank you again

-yr2alex

[AussieJohn]

I don´know how urpmi could be less robust than other methods.

I have never ever had any troubles using it. Need I say it again, never.

I have occassional problems but they all eventually revealed that I had done something incorrectly. When I did it correctly, what do you know......................the problem disappeared.

I suspect most who have problems are those that either do not know how to use it properly in the manner it was designed for or those who think they are cleverer and try to use it in a way that it was not designed for.

Those singing such huge praise for other systems, I sometimes suspect do it to big note themselves.

(Note the emphasis on sometimes. If you start to flame me then maybe you see it as applying to you.)

 

I know there are other good systems out there but I have to admit I get a little fed up with a lot of the pseudo elitism portrayed by some critics of urpmi.

In what way is urpmi less mature than Apt-Get ??? Many make this kind of empty remark without really explaining what they mean by it.

Maybe that means it is a newer system. So what. Perhaps that is a good thing. For an example look at grub. Much newer than Lilo but ten times easier to use than lilo. Lilo does a great job but not better than grub, just differently. So why not use the easier one when it achieves the same result in the end for a lot less user effort ???

 

In my opinion that does NOT mean urpmi is less robust than other systems.

 

Urpmi is a good product that does a great job.

Does this mean it won´t get even better in the future ??? I do not think so.

Cheers. John

[polemicz]

urpmi --auto-select will do what apt-get upgrade does.

[yr2alex]

I don´know how urpmi could be less robust than other methods.

I have never ever had any troubles using it. Need I say it again, never.

I have occassional problems but they all eventually revealed that I had done something incorrectly. When I did it correctly, what do you know......................the problem disappeared.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never meant for the words "more robust" to be a negative implaction despite how it sounds. I too have not had any major issues with URPMI to speak of. In fact my experiences have been much like yours in that regard.

 

I suspect most who have problems are those that either do not know how to use it properly in the manner it was designed for or those who think they are cleverer and try to use it in a way that it was not designed for.

Those singing such huge praise for other systems, I sometimes suspect do it to big note themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

with the exception one incident that I had with the install of Mandriva I have had nothing but good things to say about Mandriva. In fact I have been content with using it since release version 8.2, only I'm not sure if URPMI was available then and if so I wasn't aware of it. As far as installing packages was concerned then, I either installed via rpm -ivh, -Uvh or built from source if I wasn't able to resolve deps. Each distro has their pros and cons please don't be offended because I chose to underscore the pros of another.

 

(Note the emphasis on sometimes. If you start to flame me then maybe you see it as applying to you.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No worries as always I reserve flames for edibles.. :lol:

 

I know there are other good systems out there but I have to admit I get a little fed up with a lot of the pseudo elitism portrayed by some critics of urpmi.

In what way is urpmi less mature than Apt-Get ??? Many make this kind of empty remark without really explaining what they mean by it.

Maybe that means it is a newer system.  So what.  Perhaps that is a good thing.  For an example look at grub. Much newer than Lilo but ten times easier to use than lilo.  Lilo does a great job but not better than grub, just differently.  So why not use the easier one when it achieves the same result in the end for a lot less user effort ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Touche!!

 

Urpmi is a good product that does a great job.

Does this mean it won´t get even better in the future ???  I do not think so.

Cheers.                          John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed

 

yr2alex

[adamw]

urpmi does everything apt does except suggested dependencies. It also does some things apt doesn't. This issue has nothing to do with the package manager, but with the packages. If we released updated versions of everything as soon as it came out, you could indeed use urpmi to update. Indeed, you can do this, if you use Cooker, where you really do get updated versions of _everything_ as soon as it comes out, along with all the attendant instability. As far as stable releases go, our policy is that they are stable, meaning we don't just bump versions for the heck of it. Neither do debian; the only way you would be able to upgrade from Firefox 1.0.3 to 1.0.4 using official debian packages and apt-get would be by using sid, Debian's unstable release (i.e. the same thing as Cooker). Debian stable releases don't get official version bumps either, and their release cycle is so glacial I doubt they _have_ a stable release with Firefox in it at all...

 

If you ran a version of Mandriva which gets constant updates - i.e., Cooker - all you'd need to do would be 'urpmi.update -a' followed by 'urpmi mozilla-firefox', and the job would be done.

[yr2alex]

If you ran a version of Mandriva which gets constant updates - i.e., Cooker - all you'd need to do would be 'urpmi.update -a' followed by 'urpmi mozilla-firefox', and the job would be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

this is the answer i was looking for in a nutshell, thanks Oh and btw oddly enough 1.0.4 was made available just before your reply to this post, heh.

 

Viva Mandriva, thanks again

 

-yr2alex