On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson
<awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> [...]
> * Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
> something you have to do with a proper stable OS
I am not sure why you call it unreliable ... I *never* reinstall
unless I really had to (moving one installation from i386 to x86_64).
On one machine I did upgrade from i386 -> x86_64 just for fun.
Sure I had to drop in single user 3-4 times and manually install some
rpm but eventually I got it done (it was a VM ;)
Otherwise I always upgrade using either anaconda back in the days
and
then preupgrade.
There is some weird attitude that "upgrades don't work anyway people
should just reinstall". Not only is a reinstall a lot more work it is
just not something you could ask from a user to do every 6-12 months.
it would be nice to squash 2 release cycles and use the gained time to
make a better upgrade process imo.
Technically there is no difference between an upgrade and package
updates just the package set is larger, it just makes dealing with
stuff like usrmove easier. If an update from foo-1.0 to foo-2.0 breaks
the whole system it will regardless whether you upgrade from FN-1 to
FN or doing a "yum update" in a rolling release.
+1
however there is a difference, sometime many little changes over time
can run much smoother than one big change at once where you go tfrom pkg
release N-10 to N
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York