On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 22:00 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Sun, 2012-12-16 at 21:15 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Björn Persson > > <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Except for Yum, which has for years been the only method that > > was both > > secure and practical anyway, but I agree. As long as people > > are being > > discouraged from upgrading by Yum because it's "unsupported", > > removing > > the only "supported" and secure upgrade method is definitely a > > regression, and quite irresponsible. > > > > I have filed a ticket for FESCo's consideration on the fedup situation > > > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/982 > > > > No ISO based or graphical upgrade by itself is a severe regression but > > having no supported upgrade path that is secure is I think is just > > unacceptable. > > Why do we even need fedup ? > > I already upgraded 2 machines with yum distro-sync w/o many issues[1]. > I do not understand why there isn't work on making a yum plugin if > something out of the ordinary needs to be done to upgrade instead of > coming up with new tools every time. fedup essentially automates doing yum distro-sync across a reboot and in an isolated environment, and provides an interface for hooking in any kind of outside-of-yum-mucking-about we might need to do (like the /usr move stuff). It's really just a slightly sophisticated framework to do what you're suggesting. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
