On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Lamar Owen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Monday, November 07, 2011 07:00:08 PM you wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Yes that is our support stance. It is NOT supported by either TUV or SL .
>>
>> I remember that thread and Connie's response. I'm sorry that I
>> suggested in this thread that it was OK; I was confusing RHEL/SL with
>> Fedora, where it is OK and one of the Anaconda pre-release QA tests.
>
> Not supported != doesn't work. Which means, if you get it to work, that's great,
> but if it fails to work, you get to keep the pieces, and you won't be 'entitled' to
> any sympathy or help.
I agree - and I don't think that I said that it wouldn't work.
> There has been an 'upgradeany' command line option in CentOS at least for
> several cycles, but it is also not supported. It might work, but it likely
> will leave your system in a 'self-supported' state. Meaning, again, that
> when it breaks you won't get any sympathy, and you'll likely get the
> 'unsympathy' which seems to be typical for techie lists.... sorry, but facts
> are facts, and whether it's right and fair or not, it just *is* the case.
I'd forgotten about "upgradeany" (probably because I've never used
it). AFAIU, it's useful if the installer cannot recognize your
installation as upgradable because of a modified/broken
"/etc/*-release". So it's just a special case of "upgrade".
> Likewise, preupgrade tends to work fairly well for Fedora; but when it works
> it typically doesn't work for an upgrade increment of more than two Fedora
> versions. The Fedora version skew between EL5, based somewhat on FC6, and
> EL6, based somewhat on a melange of F12, F13, and other things, is 6 full
> Fedora versions. Even if preupgrade were available for FC6, it likely would
> not upgrade to F12 even in one step. It's not likely to be ever be
> *supported* on EL of any version, even if it does become available.
I was hoping for a "preupgrade" option for an SL6-to-SL7 upgrade not
an SL5-to-SL6 one because "preupgrade" appeared in F10 or F11 and
SL6's based on F12/F13.
You're probably right that "preupgrade" might not be able to handle as
large a jump as SL6 to SL7.
> This is where the one of the major differences between the RPM packaging and
> the DEB packaging shows itself. Debian (and Debian-derivatives) take
> advantage of the possibility of interactive response in a DEB to deal with
> real upgrade issues; RPMs are not supposed to do any interaction with the
> user in any of the package's scriptlets. The DEB scripts have wide latitude
> in what they can do, and have several powerful tools available for use in
> the script. It does make complete unattended upgrading somewhat difficult,
> as it prompts the user for lots and lots of things and seemingly random
> times; IOW, it's not a 'start it and let it run overnight' thing without
> effort.
You can add "%pre" and/or "%post" scripts requiring user-interaction
to an SRPM's spec file and package/repackage an RPM but it's very much
frowned upon. You won't get a "nice" debconf dialog but you can
_PROBABLY_ so the same thing.
(I've forgotten how to do so but you can set up apt to answer debconf
dialogs automatically.)
> I've attempted preupgrade upgrades, and have not had one go 100%
> successfully yet. Nor, for that matter, have I ever had a DVD or CD upgrade
> of any Fedora version go 100% successfully, either.
I've had problems with various types of upgrades whether using Linux
or Windows/OS X. My latest misadventure was upgrading my iPad from iOS
4 to iOS 5... But, thankfully, the majority of the upgrades that I've
attempted have been successful. I prefer clean installs though!
|
