Re: Checking dependencies in packages selected for installation

Tim:
For those updating a system with quite a few things already on it, it's
a common recommendation to first uninstall some of the larger things,
like OpenOffice.org.

Sam Varshavchik:
That's not a valid excuse.

While I agree it's not a wonderful thing to have to do, the fact is that
doing an upgrade involves a lot of work. Minimising the workload,
beforehand, will lessen the time it takes to do its thing.

I have my own packaging tool I use for managing my own software. I
got so sick and tired of rpm, last year, that I wrote my own, to
manage by own code. I can import rpm dependencies into my own
database (which will NEVER get corrupted like rpm regularly does, see
below). It takes me only a minute or two, to suck out all
dependencies out of rpm, via perl-RPM2. And, on a beat up old Celeron
500, it takes only another three minutes to reconcile RPM's
dependencies against mine's, and identify any conflicts. There is no
reason, whatsoever, that this crap should take an hour to figure out,
in anaconda.

If you do avoid their own tools, you are on you own to resolve problems.
Though, having said that, I'm sure there would be people interested in a
better system. You're not the only one who's been put off by the time
involved in an upgrade, as well as the potential problems.

The last time I tried an upgrade was around the Red Hat 6 or 7 era, and
that didn't take a huge amount of time to complete (longer than a fresh
install, though), but it did have some problems, post install. There
are quite a few horror stories on this list about how badly that worked
with Fedora, and how long, too.

The real ugly truth here is that the upgrade path in anaconda is being
neglected for commercial reasons.

I don't know if I'd come to that conclusion. I could easily believe
that someone thinks it's just too hard to do well. I'm less inclined to
believe that there's an ulterior motive behind it.

If the 800lb gorilla I deal with, daily, is a typical RHAS licensee -- and I
have no reason to think that they're not -- most RHAS customers do not
upgrade their servers. The servers are all network clients, and RHAS
gets upgraded on the servers just by loading a new install image.

I think you'll find a lot of people don't upgrade their servers. It's a
big task, that involves more than just loading software. There's custom
configurations that took a long time to get where they wanted them to
be, plus the data.

I still run FC4 on my servers. I've tried out FC5 and FC6 on the
clients, haven't seen a great motivating factor to convince me it's
worth all the hard work in upgrading the server. Plus the fact that I
see more problems with the two of them than I've resolved with FC4.

For me, it probably isn't going to be an upgrade of the server. I'll
probably set up a new server, and transfer data over once it's been
running for a while without falling over.

--


Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NT4 to Win 03
    ... Easies is to upgrade your existing PDC. ... you have to set the AD domain in Native mode. ... If you upgrade you do not have to set your AD domain in native mode. ... > assume i will install the new 2003 servers one at a time. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.migration)
  • Re: Graphical Interfaces
    ... A sampling of the things that Microsoft has never really understood: ... - You can't reboot servers to install software. ... you can't upgrade anything in less than two years. ... - Internal documentation of software is a good thing, especially for tech support. ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: NT4 to Win 03
    ... > users access to NT 4.0 file/application servers, ... In other words, if I upgrade my ... replication between NT 4.0 BDCs and AD DCs in the same domain. ... > the NT domain to the AD domain, or upgrade, by upgrading the NT PDC first. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.migration)
  • RE: NT 4.0 to Windows Server 2003 Upgrade
    ... When I start the upgrade process ... | would it be better to configure DNS through the AD wizard? ... My question is, when should I add my static servers, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.migration)
  • Re: I am NOT a troll
    ... listen to the track and then when one song ended and one was about ... I -e'd the rpm, re-installed it, same thing. ... couldn't because of gtk - I couldn't upgrade gtk, ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
Loading