What approaches do people here use for upgrading Fedora installations? I'm assuming that one wants to upgrade, even if only for curiosity.
The options seem to be (all assuming /home to be a separate filesystem which will be appropriately mounted after the upgrade):
- choose 'upgrade' option from the latest fedora install ISO set - choose 'install' and reinstall all the required applications (maybe scripted?) - upgrade using yum or apt-get (I don't know how to do this, but it is apparently possible)
Can anyone suggest how to choose between these? Fedora has a pretty high rate of version churn and for anyone like me who wants to keep up it's going to be important to establish a reliable and non-labour-intensive procedure.
CB wrote:
What approaches do people here use for upgrading Fedora installations? I'm assuming that one wants to upgrade, even if only for curiosity.
You don't mention the procedure that I use. I have two RAID devices that I use for root filesystems (including /home). At any given time, one of them is the production system, and the other one is usually the previous version of Red Hat Linux/Fedora Core. When the time comes to "upgrade", I do a fresh install on the "non-production" device, which becomes the new production system. Then I selectively copy files and directories from the previous system to the new one. Since the old system stays around for a long time, there's next to no chance that I'll forget to migrate anything.
This is more labor intensive, but it has the advantage that it avoids the build up of "cruft" that can occur when one constantly upgrades.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:54:35 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
You don't mention the procedure that I use. I have two RAID devices that I use for root filesystems (including /home). At any given time, one of them is the production system, and the other one is usually the previous version of Red Hat Linux/Fedora Core. When the time comes to "upgrade", I do a fresh install on the "non-production" device, which becomes the new production system. Then I selectively copy files and directories from the previous system to the new one. Since the old system stays around for a long time, there's next to no chance that I'll forget to migrate anything.
Is a primitive version of that feasible? I have two separate machines behind the same router, and do something similar; but I'm nobody's technoid, and don't even have them networked. I'm wondering if I (or anybody in similar circumstances) could cobble together a way to make these two old clunkers pass files back and forth -- configurations, bookmarks, etc. -- without two or three years' work learning enough computer science to set up a real LAN ...
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 08:54 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
CB wrote:
What approaches do people here use for upgrading Fedora installations? I'm assuming that one wants to upgrade, even if only for curiosity.
You don't mention the procedure that I use. I have two RAID devices that I use for root filesystems (including /home). At any given time, one of them is the production system, and the other one is usually the previous version of Red Hat Linux/Fedora Core. When the time comes to "upgrade", I do a fresh install on the "non-production" device, which becomes the new production system. Then I selectively copy files and directories from the previous system to the new one. Since the old system stays around for a long time, there's next to no chance that I'll forget to migrate anything.
This is more labor intensive, but it has the advantage that it avoids the build up of "cruft" that can occur when one constantly upgrades.
That's quite a neat idea. It wouldn't really work for my situation though as I just have too many disparate applications installed, and can't quite bear the thought of having to install them all again over a fresh Fedora install. 'Cruft' or major distribution changes will no doubt make it necessary eventually, but I don't want to do it for every upgrade.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:32:54 +1000, CB fedoralist@crispin.cb-ss.net wrote:
What approaches do people here use for upgrading Fedora installations? I'm assuming that one wants to upgrade, even if only for curiosity.
The options seem to be (all assuming /home to be a separate filesystem which will be appropriately mounted after the upgrade):
I've used several different approaches (all of which assume the data has been backed up) 1. Simply upgrade when newer versio becomes available ****Takes more time than a fresh install & seems to require lots of tweaking post install 2.Keep /home on its own partition, install the newer OS from scratch leaving /home intact. ****This was until recently my preferred option, may require a few tweaks especially if transitioning from selinux disabled to selinux enabled. 3. Just do a fresh install, and selectively restore files you want to retain to the appropriate location. ****I just move my 'working files', DBs etc. to the new system. I also keep a text file that documents things like my WAP/WEP stuff, any required tweakage by app etc. This really works well for me.
Hey guys,
I've been reading the thread and thinking about how to partition my hard drive. Could you tell me if this is feasible (or if it even makes any sense):
80 gig hd - hd0 ntfs 30 gig - winxp (I know but I'm a newbie with linux) - hd1 ext3 10 gig - /home (to be shared between installed linux distros) - hd2 ext3 20 gig - / , fedora core 2 - hd3 ext3 20 gig - / . fedora core 3 test 2
I don't know about the size distrabution... should /home get 30 gig and hd2/3 get 10 gig each?
Thanks
Peter McDermott wrote:
Hey guys,
I've been reading the thread and thinking about how to partition my hard drive. Could you tell me if this is feasible (or if it even makes any sense):
80 gig hd
- hd0 ntfs 30 gig - winxp (I know but I'm a newbie
with linux)
- hd1 ext3 10 gig - /home (to be shared between
installed linux distros)
- hd2 ext3 20 gig - / , fedora core 2
- hd3 ext3 20 gig - / . fedora core 3 test 2
I don't know about the size distrabution... should /home get 30 gig and hd2/3 get 10 gig each?
Thanks
How about this instead:
80 gig hd - hd0 ntfs 30 gig - winxp - hd1 fat 20 gig - sharing (sharing for mp3/doc/etc. files) - hd2 ext3 75 meg - /boot (fc2 [chain linked]) - hd3 ext3 75 meg - /boot1 (fc3t2 boot sector) - hd4 swap 2x memory (absolutely necessary) - hd5 ext3 8 gig - / , fedora core 2 - hd6 ext3 8 gig - / . fedora core 3 test 2 - hd7 ext3 all that's left for /home
You need a swap and boot partition to run linux, especially with more than one OS. If you're running two different versions of linux, it is easiest to acsses them by chainlinking them (read fedorafaq.org, fedoranews.org or fedoraform.org). You definitely don't need that much space for the main file system (/).
---rant--- However, as a newbie, I would stick to fc2 only until you learn the ropes. Linux isn't difficult, but it is definitively different from what you know as a windows user. Once you know your way around the OS and know where/how to get help/fix things. Only then are you ready to help by using the test versions. While many people use the without incident, far more run into problems which need fixing and without a basic idea of how the OS works, you can't provide the info programmers need to debug or at least give them a vague idea of where to start. I know some people (maybe a lot) don't agree with that, but I don't care. I really, honestly believe you should become comfortable with and have a basic understanding of linux before accepting the role of a "crash test dummy". OTOH, if you have a good understanding of linux and believe in OSS, I believe it is your duty to help with test releases. Doing so would be part of the mantra of OSS, community-base development. ---rant---
I know I might get flamed for this, but I don't care.
Thanks Craig,
I forgot about the boot partitions and would not have known one was needed for every installed Linux distro.
As far as the rant is concerned, I hope you don't get flamed :-) I see where your coming from. I promise not to whine if messing with test versions doesn't work out. I know newbies tend to post messages that are easily answered elsewhere (i.e. google) and that experienced users probably tire of that, but try and keep in mind that Linux info is more decentralized than msft's and newbies can feel like they are swimming into the deep end of the pool. If Linux trends toward mainstream use it is inevitable that there will be more newbie posts to deal with.
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 14:45, Peter McDermott wrote:
Hey guys,
I've been reading the thread and thinking about how to partition my hard drive. Could you tell me if this is feasible (or if it even makes any sense):
80 gig hd - hd0 ntfs 30 gig - winxp (I know but I'm a newbie with linux) - hd1 ext3 10 gig - /home (to be shared between installed linux distros) - hd2 ext3 20 gig - / , fedora core 2 - hd3 ext3 20 gig - / . fedora core 3 test 2
I don't know about the size distrabution... should /home get 30 gig and hd2/3 get 10 gig each?
If you are downloading a lot of stuff then home should be larger. You also need a swap partition
I probably would do 20gb winxp, 1gb swap (large excess in most situations), 30gb home, and split the rest for the 2 linux partitions. Note that some say Linux does not like /boot to be in an extended partition so you may want to create 2 /boot partitions as primary partitions and put all the rest of the linux stuff in extended partitions. On the disk that would be XP /boot (FC2) /boot (FC3) extended /home swap FC2 FC3
or something similar.
Thanks
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:45:24 -0700, Peter McDermott peter@mcdermottpa.com wrote:
Hey guys,
I've been reading the thread and thinking about how to partition my hard drive. Could you tell me if this is feasible (or if it even makes any sense):
80 gig hd - hd0 ntfs 30 gig - winxp (I know but I'm a newbie with linux) - hd1 ext3 10 gig - /home (to be shared between installed linux distros) - hd2 ext3 20 gig - / , fedora core 2 - hd3 ext3 20 gig - / . fedora core 3 test 2
I don't know about the size distrabution... should /home get 30 gig and hd2/3 get 10 gig each?
It partly depends on what you are trying to accomplish with the system IMHO. For a workstation install using an 80 GB hdd I'd go with: 40 GB for XP (install XP *first*) with 20 GB ntfs, 20 fat 32 to share between both OSs. the remaining 40 ish as follows: /boot 100 or so (core 2) /boot 100 0r so (core 3 T2 chainloaded) 2X RAM for swap (this can be used by both fedora installs) / 5 MB (core 2) /5 mB (core 3) /home use remaining space (shared by both fedoras)
Some things to consider- Sharing /home across versions may be a little problematic since you will be using different versions of software depending on whether you are running core 2 / core 3 T2. This is likely to be even odder if you are running e.g. core 2 w/o selinux disabled (default) and core 3 with selinux enabled (default). You should probably take pains to back up your data frequently if it is at all important to you since 'test releases eat babies'. Then again, backing up early and often is a good idea test release or *not*. I'd probably skip sharing /home and give 5 GB to FC2 T2 with the remaining space going to /home for Core 2 if you wish to run both on the same machine. You can, of course, skip core 2 altogether if you want to play with test 2. I've been running test 2 exclusively since it came out and have not really run into anything that I'd consider to be a show stopper(tm) but my tolerance for test weirdness may well be higher than yours since I've been running one flavor or another of Fedora Core test for the majority of the time since last autumn.
YMMV :)
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 20:32 +1000, CB wrote:
What approaches do people here use for upgrading Fedora installations?
I regularily do a "rpm --freshen *.rpm" from my local rawhide mirror. This gives me total control of the process but I guess it is not recommended practice.
Tom
Thanks for all the replies. The problem as I see it for home machines like mine is that being used for a wide variety of uses (officey stuff, music listening and production, development, LDAP and file sharing services etc), there are a large number of applications that gradually get installed over a period of time. The thought of losing those and having to reinstall everything is painful enough to deter upgrade (again, I'm just assuming here that I do wish to upgrade). Within these constraints I think my options narrow to:
- anaconda upgrade - fresh install, with script that goes though a list of applications and installs them, presumably using yum or apt.
The anaconda upgrade is certainly looking the simplest means (I don't mind the extra time it takes). Can anyone comment on its reliability in general?
The anaconda upgrade is certainly looking the simplest means (I don't mind the extra time it takes). Can anyone comment on its reliability in general?
It works OK. What has worked for me in the past on a system that has only 'stock' (FC CoreX + FC CoreX extras + Livna.org stuff) is: Do an anaconda upgrade from fedora core.foo to fedora core.bar Make it start in runlevel 3 w/rhgb *off* to avoid X weirdness. boot new system if you get a bunch of AVC errors (selinux) boot back into rullevel 1, do fixfiles (relable, whatever). Restart, if all is well do as root system-config-display (cmd may vary depending on FC version). Then- startx as user, all s/b well as far as GUI goes. Then go ahead and do whatever it is you do with the box, tweaking wherever stuff breaks. If all is well then config stuff to do your prefs on boot & drive on. If not simply google your ass off(TM) and fix whatever is broken.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 08:32:54PM +1000, CB wrote:
What approaches do people here use for upgrading Fedora installations?
....
Can anyone suggest how to choose between these? Fedora has a pretty high rate of version churn and for anyone like me who wants to keep up it's going to be important to establish a reliable and non-labour-intensive procedure.
When I can I like to upgrade. With some care things commonly work fine.
One up2date option of great value is:
up2date --show-orphans
The only orphans you want are 'special' packages that you know, love and understand.
Another trick is to look at all the config files that rpm knows about. Especially the *.rpmnew and *.rpmsave files.
After the slocate data base has been refreshed by cron. Look for and inspect any config files that need attention.
locate rpm | grep rpmnew$ locate rpm | grep rpmsave$
The extreme user will be interested in this list:
(rpm -qa )| while read it; do rpm -q --configfiles $it; done | less
My personal preference is to ping-pong between machines. I do a clean load on my 'spare' machine and explore the new release. Then on that 'clean' box I fill it out with local customization (named, mail, plugins etc).
I then upgrade my primary machine. The 'clean' box (reference) makes it easy to debug stuff.
If do not like the results of the upgrade I still have the option of a reload.
The clean box gives me positive values for partition sizes. I might repartition it a couple times. /home is a separate disk.
I have found that the clean reference machine has made upgrades easy. Without the reference machine I would recommend clean loads for those that ask.
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:51:55 -0700, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote:
One up2date option of great value is:
up2date --show-orphans
The only orphans you want are 'special' packages that you know, love and understand.
Most of this is way over my head, alas. I did hit that command once before, and got screensful of stuff -- but didn't and don't have any idea what to do about it. Go through them doing "rpm -e whatever"??
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 10:15:21AM -0400, Beartooth wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:51:55 -0700, Nifty Hat Mitch wrote:
One up2date option of great value is:
up2date --show-orphans
The only orphans you want are 'special' packages that you know, love and understand.
Most of this is way over my head, alas. I did hit that command once before, and got screensful of stuff -- but didn't and don't have any idea what to do about it. Go through them doing "rpm -e whatever"??
Erasing them is should not be your first thought.
Consider the list as a list of packaged to research. They are packages that you will not get 'magical' new updates for with up2date or yum. They might pose a future security or system stability problem. They might be important to you.
You can and should look for the original rpm package and archive it and the source rpm should you need it.
If you do not use the package then "rpm -e theunused" is closer to the top of your option set.
Consider the XFree86 to Xorg update (RH9|FC1-->FC2). Any XFree86 package should have been replaced by an equivalent Xorg package. If in packaging a replace rule was missed then it is possible to have two sets of code in the system and conflicts are possible.
The same is true for non RH distributions. Example: If you are running 'firefox' from the development site or Dag then you update to a new FCn that contains 'firefox' then it is important for most of us to have only one on the system. If you have to ask, that one is most commonly the one that is part of the distribution not the development package.
Both additions, deletions and renaming of packages count (yep 3).
BTW: firefox is in FC3T2 and not in FC2 and many FC2 users enjoy working with firefox.