Hide Forgot
After a fresh, *new* re-install of Fisher, up2date reports no updates needed. I had registered anomymously during the first install, and updates were installed. However, since this was a clean re-install, shouldn't the system database report that is not in sync with available fixes?
There are currently no updated packages available in the anonymous up2date server that Fisher talks to by default. So detecting that no new packages are available for a client fisher install is the correct behaviour. I'm more interested in why up2date would have detected there were packages available for update in the first install. Was this an upgrade from 7.0? Were any packages downgraded manually?
No, the initial install was a clean (freshly formatted system) installation of the Fisher beta. At that time, I installed almost everything, merely to be sure that I had all needed libraries. After the RHN configuration, I ran RHN update, and sure enough, I got a long list of available updates, of which I selected almost all. I decided to do a fresh install, selecting only have the applications which I am more likely to use, or which (IMHO), I might be more capable of detecting any "buggy" behavoir. Unlike the first install, I also added some apps and libraries from the Power Tools CD. Subsequently, when I run the RHN config. and update, it reports that my system is fully updated. If you wish, I could do *yet another* fresh install, and test if up2date reports any available stuff. Now that I've replaced my old 16x Toshiba with an Acer 12x DVD (40x CDR), installation goes a bit faster on my AMD-k2/500. Though I don't have a backup tape device, I can easily copy / save my own data to the Windows98 partition or onto my LS-120 diskettes.
Assigned QA to jturner
the fact that packages were available the first time must have been a transient server configuration issue -- no updates were made available for fisher via RHN. This may change. However, the current behaviour (no updates available) is expected.