On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 16:06 -0500, Steven Stern wrote:
On 05/26/2015 03:36 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:05:38PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> > On 05/26/2015 12:27 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > IIRC yum used to be recommended before fedup came along. In any
> > > case
> > > I've just upgraded with fedup and it worked again as it has for
> > > the
> > > last 4 or 5 upgrades.
> >
> > Before there was the aptly-named fedup, there was preupgrade,
> > which worked
> > just fine for me. Before that, the recommended upgrade was
> > backup,
> > reinstall and restore. Yes, there was yum upgrade, but it was
> > very, very
> > Not Recommended. Now, there's also the unofficial upgrade
> > -fedora, and I'll
> > be trying on this box Real Soon Now.
>
> Well, my first preupgrade experience was okayish, but I was also
> very
> new to linux then. However by the time preupgrade had resolved its
> issues, I had already moved on to yum. I just find it a bit
> surprising
> that it is not *one of* the supported methods (meaning, QA tested),
> specially since it works so reliably and with such short downtime.
>
If I were to add anything to the fedup documentation it would be
Start this and then go to lunch. It's gonna be a while.
YMMV. In my case it was all over in 30 minutes, but I have a reasonably
fast
machine and Internet connection. I wouldn't expect the total elapsed
time to vary much with alternative upgrade methods.
poc