What do I do with a Fedora-20 beta install to update it? It was updated early this morning and I suspect it is now the equivalent of the new release.
Will I have problems with yum updates?
Presently it shows: [bobg@box10 ~]$ uname -a Linux box10 3.11.10-300.fc20.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Nov 29 19:16:48 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[bobg@box10 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
Indications are it's Fedora-20 as it is ...
I haven't found this mentioned in a Google search, perhaps I didn't use the right keyword/phrase.
Suggestions please.
Bob
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:38:49 -0500 Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
What do I do with a Fedora-20 beta install to update it?
yum or dnf update it.
On 17/12/13 13:40, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:38:49 -0500 Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
What do I do with a Fedora-20 beta install to update it?
yum or dnf update it.
[root@box10 bobg]# yum update Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit No packages marked for update
So I can conclude all is well and it is what I want it to be?
As I said I updated it around 04:00 this morning before the official release time so it would seem it whould be updated to the max.
Thanks,
Bob
On 12/17/2013 10:48 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
As I said I updated it around 04:00 this morning before the official release time so it would seem it whould be updated to the max.
Why be in such a hurry to upgrade? Is being an early adopter that important to you? On the first day or so of a new release, the repos are going to be slammed, just as the MS servers are on Patch Tuesday. And, of course, there's always the few (we hope) bugs and glitches that didn't get caught in beta-testing. I always wait at least a week, to see how things are going, and then I only upgrade my laptop. My desktop, and main work machine, can wait until I'm sure that the laptop's OK. And, if I see large numbers of threads here and on the various web fora about upgrade issues, I'll wait even longer, sometimes skipping a version if it seems buggier than normal. Of course, I'm only responsible for my own boxes at home, and being retired have no work boxes to consider, but I'd think that a little bit of patience might be a good thing here. YMMV, and clearly does, but I do wonder a tad about what's the big rush. (If you have a good reason, such as a need for the newest version of something, of course, that's different. It's just the "change for the sake of change" attitude that I don't quite understand.)
On 17/12/13 14:25, Joe Zeff wrote:
Why be in such a hurry to upgrade? Is being an early adopter that important to you? On the first day or so of a new release, the repos are going to be slammed, just as the MS servers are on Patch Tuesday. And, of course, there's always the few (we hope) bugs and glitches that didn't get caught in beta-testing. I always wait at least a week, to see how things are going, and then I only upgrade my laptop. My desktop, and main work machine, can wait until I'm sure that the laptop's OK. And, if I see large numbers of threads here and on the various web fora about upgrade issues, I'll wait even longer, sometimes skipping a version if it seems buggier than normal. Of course, I'm only responsible for my own boxes at home, and being retired have no work boxes to consider, but I'd think that a little bit of patience might be a good thing here. YMMV, and clearly does, but I do wonder a tad about what's the big rush. (If you have a good reason, such as a need for the newest version of something, of course, that's different. It's just the "change for the sake of change" attitude that I don't quite understand.)
Joe, if I must justify my actions, and I question that, there's no "big rush" it's just another form of amusement for me. I had been running F-20 in VMware and decided it worked well enough to use. The hard drive on which F-19 is installed was becoming too full. I installed a larger drive from an F-16 computer that failed several weeks ago and decided I would move my work into the larger drive, why not with F-20 beta which I already knew was good to go?" So here I am. I still have F-19 available on this computer if I mess up anything as well as having a second F-19 computer configured to be like this one and can swap configuration files back and fourth as well as storing copies on an NFS server. The more I mess with this stuff the better my ability becomes at manipulating things and I solve most of the problems I create, only come here when I have to.
Bob
On 12/17/2013 11:57 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Joe, if I must justify my actions, and I question that, there's no "big rush" it's just another form of amusement for me.
No, you don't need to justify your actions; if you find it amusing to be an early adopter and deal with all of the last-minute oopsies, that's all I need to know. My post was intended to explain why I prefer to wait, and ask why others rush in.
On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 12/17/2013 11:57 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Joe, if I must justify my actions, and I question that, there's no "big rush" it's just another form of amusement for me.
No, you don't need to justify your actions; if you find it amusing to be an early adopter and deal with all of the last-minute oopsies, that's all I need to know. My post was intended to explain why I prefer to wait, and ask why others rush in.
Because it's fun to break things, and get irritated; irritation is motivation to fine causes, file bugs, and get things fixed. That's why I QA anyway.
Chris Murphy
On 17 December 2013 20:28, Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 12/17/2013 11:57 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Joe, if I must justify my actions, and I question that, there's no "big rush" it's just another form of amusement for me.
No, you don't need to justify your actions; if you find it amusing to be an early adopter and deal with all of the last-minute oopsies, that's all I need to know. My post was intended to explain why I prefer to wait, and ask why others rush in.
Because it's fun to break things, and get irritated; irritation is motivation to fine causes, file bugs, and get things fixed. That's why I QA anyway.
Oddly the reason I do the (small amount) of pre-release testing I do is pretty much exactly the opposite.
On 17 December 2013 19:57, Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
On 17/12/13 14:25, Joe Zeff wrote:
Why be in such a hurry to upgrade? Is being an early adopter that important to you? On the first day or so of a new release, the repos are going to be slammed, just as the MS servers are on Patch Tuesday. And, of course, there's always the few (we hope) bugs and glitches that didn't get caught in beta-testing. I always wait at least a week, to see how things are going, and then I only upgrade my laptop. My desktop, and main work machine, can wait until I'm sure that the laptop's OK. And, if I see large numbers of threads here and on the various web fora about upgrade issues, I'll wait even longer, sometimes skipping a version if it seems buggier than normal. Of course, I'm only responsible for my own boxes at home, and being retired have no work boxes to consider, but I'd think that a little bit of patience might be a good thing here. YMMV, and clearly does, but I do wonder a tad about what's the big rush. (If you have a good reason, such as a need for the newest version of something, of course, that's different. It's just the "change for the sake of change" attitude that I don't quite understand.)
Joe, if I must justify my actions, and I question that, there's no "big rush" it's just another form of amusement for me. I had been running F-20 in VMware and decided it worked well enough to use. The hard drive on which F-19 is installed was becoming too full. I installed a larger drive from an F-16 computer that failed several weeks ago and decided I would move my work into the larger drive, why not with F-20 beta which I already knew was good to go?" So here I am. I still have F-19 available on this computer if I mess up anything as well as having a second F-19 computer configured to be like this one and can swap configuration files back and fourth as well as storing copies on an NFS server. The more I mess with this stuff the better my ability becomes at manipulating things and I solve most of the problems I create, only come here when I have to.
In fact by definition it's people running pre-release for whatever reason who are doing the testing! And even if you don't want, or don't think you're wanted, to fill out test matrices, you can still provide feedback on individual packages. People with the time, resources and inclination are more than welcome to run beta.
On 12/17/2013 12:32 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
In fact by definition it's people running pre-release for whatever reason who are doing the testing! And even if you don't want, or don't think you're wanted, to fill out test matrices, you can still provide feedback on individual packages. People with the time, resources and inclination are more than welcome to run beta.
Of course. And, if you're running beta, you need to understand that the software you're using may not be ready for prime time yet. I've seen enough threads on various support fora from users running beta and expecting it to be as well polished and bug free (ha!) as production versions to know that there are an awful large number of people who think that beta means "latest and greatest."
And, as far as running beta goes, I have the time and the resources, but not the inclination. Cleaning up after an upgrade hung, or otherwise failed so that I don't have to do a complete re-install and figure out what packages I forgot to select is about the biggest job I'm willing to get involved in any more.
On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
And, as far as running beta goes, I have the time and the resources, but not the inclination. Cleaning up after an upgrade hung, or otherwise failed so that I don't have to do a complete re-install and figure out what packages I forgot to select is about the biggest job I'm willing to get involved in any more.
Fedora doesn't magically get more stable. It's due to testing, bug reporting, and triaging those bugs, much of which is done by volunteers. The more testers, the better the coverage, the more bugs are found before release. The stability depends in large part on the community's contribution into finding and properly reporting bugs (reproduce instructions, attaching the proper logs, etc.) The community gets out of Fedora what's put into it.
Chris Murphy
On 12/17/2013 12:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Fedora doesn't magically get more stable. It's due to testing, bug reporting, and triaging those bugs, much of which is done by volunteers. The more testers, the better the coverage, the more bugs are found before release. The stability depends in large part on the community's contribution into finding and properly reporting bugs (reproduce instructions, attaching the proper logs, etc.) The community gets out of Fedora what's put into it.
Obviously, and that's what beta-testers are for. My comment was about people who install the beta and don't understand what the term "beta" means.
On 17 December 2013 20:43, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 12/17/2013 12:32 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
People with the time, resources and inclination are more than welcome to run beta.
And, as far as running beta goes, I have the time and the resources, but not the inclination.
Yes, I was trying to find a list that wouldn't put people off, but does set out what's required: 1. 'Time' it's a limited resource and testing does take time. 2. 'Resources' is a bit vague, but for instance if you're running test installations it's helpful to have another computer to download things or look them up, or a good install USB to hand. Can also mean the necessary knowledge to deal with the thing to test. 3. 'Inclination' you need to have a reason for wanting to do it. Mine comes mainly from the fact I think it's easier to deal with things earlier than later, I don't want to suddenly discover a problem when it lands on me. I think this is actually an advantage of open source rather than a disadvantage, end users get to see what's coming up and what problems might affect them rather than getting a new release dumped on them.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:38:49 -0500 Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
What do I do with a Fedora-20 beta install to update it? It was updated early this morning and I suspect it is now the equivalent of the new release.
Will I have problems with yum updates?
Presently it shows: [bobg@box10 ~]$ uname -a Linux box10 3.11.10-300.fc20.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Nov 29 19:16:48 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[bobg@box10 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
Indications are it's Fedora-20 as it is ...
I haven't found this mentioned in a Google search, perhaps I didn't use the right keyword/phrase.
Suggestions please.
You will need to do a 'yum distro-sync' or re-enable the updates-testing repo if you wish to help test updates. See:
http://www.scrye.com/wordpress/nirik/2013/12/01/updates-testing-and-final-fr...
for more info.
kevin
On 17/12/13 13:49, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:38:49 -0500 Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
What do I do with a Fedora-20 beta install to update it? It was updated early this morning and I suspect it is now the equivalent of the new release.
You will need to do a 'yum distro-sync' or re-enable the updates-testing repo if you wish to help test updates. See:
http://www.scrye.com/wordpress/nirik/2013/12/01/updates-testing-and-final-fr...
for more info.
kevin
It seems they insist testers use a straight Fedora 20 install and I prefer to use XFCE configured as I want things so I gave up on helping test.
Ok, I ran "yum distro-sync" and that appeared to do what it should.
Then yum update again:
[root@box10 bobg]# yum update Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Unable to send message to PackageKit No packages marked for update
Thanks,
Bob
On Dec 17, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
On 17/12/13 13:49, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:38:49 -0500 Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
What do I do with a Fedora-20 beta install to update it? It was updated early this morning and I suspect it is now the equivalent of the new release.
You will need to do a 'yum distro-sync' or re-enable the updates-testing repo if you wish to help test updates. See:
http://www.scrye.com/wordpress/nirik/2013/12/01/updates-testing-and-final-fr...
for more info.
kevin
It seems they insist testers use a straight Fedora 20 install and I prefer to use XFCE configured as I want things so I gave up on helping test.
Ok, I ran "yum distro-sync" and that appeared to do what it should.
Then yum update again:
[root@box10 bobg]# yum update Loaded plugins: langpacks, refresh-packagekit Unable to send message to PackageKit No packages marked for update
Check commonbugs, in particular this one pertaining to pre-release installation /root permissions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#.2Froot_permissions_incorrect...
Chris Murphy
On 17/12/13 14:22, Chris Murphy wrote:
Check commonbugs, in particular this one pertaining to pre-release installation /root permissions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#.2Froot_permissions_incorrect...
Chris Murphy
Ok, I changed the permissions as suggested.
Bob
-
Bob Goodwin -
Chris Murphy -
Frank Murphy -
Ian Malone -
Joe Zeff -
Kevin Fenzi