Comments below.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Crawford Rainwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt> On the RPM side, we aren't testing an equivalent to
Matt> apt-get. Should we add in yum (or something else)?
No.
Crawford --
I agree with all your other analysis, but I think you meant "Yes"
here based on ...
Reasons for the above are simple. apt-* (apt-get, aptitude, etc.)
and yum are higher level tools built on lower level tools. apt-*
from dpkg and yum from rpm.
So you *ARE* saying we should have YUM if we're testing APT. Right
now it seems we are testing APT and RPM, not DPKG or YUM. ;)
Actually for clarification, I am saying "No" to having anything beyond
rpm, dpkg, and/or "make" (e.g., portage/emerge situation) on the LPIC-1
for package management related questions.
I am saying "Yes" (BUT, do see above paragraph and comment) to if "apt"
then include "yum" scenario, but I stand by my above noted comment still
(yes, it is meant to be written twice for the emphasis of my position).
In the end, a parallel analogy would be if one were to include Apache in
the picture, should not we also include any and all other web servers
for module that covers web server related work. Now if Apache is the
only way to do web servers...sure, no issue or problem there. But since
each distribution has its own method of package management and at
various levels, why not just keep it simple (or did we all forget the
KISS rule of thumb here?!?). ;-)
Sincerely,
Crawford Rainwater
CEO and President
Linux+, LCP, RHCT, LPIC-1
--
The Linux ETC Company
368 South McCaslin Boulevard
Suite 146
Louisville, CO 80027 USA
+1 (303) 604-2550 (voice)
+1 (303) 664-0036 (fax)
http://www.linux-etc.com
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
