On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote: > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
