Preupgrade used to be quite limited in capability, and restricted to a single version upgrade at a time. I have some systems I would rather not upgrade by hand if possible, but they need to go from fc13 to fc17, and I'm sure doing it insteps would take more effort on my part than a single step and some fixup. I noted that preupgrade offers to try to go to to fc17 in a single step, but it's not obvious if it's kidding me or itself.
Downtime should be minimized, so it's worth at least considering. Any experience?
Quoting Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com:
Preupgrade used to be quite limited in capability, and restricted to a single version upgrade at a time. I have some systems I would rather not upgrade by hand if possible, but they need to go from fc13 to fc17, and I'm sure doing it insteps would take more effort on my part than a single step and some fixup. I noted that preupgrade offers to try to go to to fc17 in a single step, but it's not obvious if it's kidding me or itself.
Downtime should be minimized, so it's worth at least considering. Any experience?
I've done something like that up my current (so to speak) F14. The only glitch I had was a small boot sector that wasn't adequate after about two stages. There's a workaround but it was scary the first time.
Dave
-- Bill Davidsen davidsen@tmr.com "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On 10/30/2012 03:48 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Preupgrade used to be quite limited in capability, and restricted to a single version upgrade at a time. I have some systems I would rather not upgrade by hand if possible, but they need to go from fc13 to fc17, and I'm sure doing it insteps would take more effort on my part than a single step and some fixup.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_16_-.3E_Fed...
As far as I know, F13 did not get a version of preupgrade that is capable of upgrading to F17. Do not attempt to upgrade in one go. Upgrade to F16 first, then use preupgrade.
If you don't want to step the ladder in that fashion, look carefully at what is required to prepare your system for the upgrade to F17.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Preupgrade used to be quite limited in capability, and restricted to a single version upgrade at a time. I have some systems I would rather not upgrade by hand if possible, but they need to go from fc13 to fc17, and I'm sure doing it insteps would take more effort on my part than a single step and some fixup. I noted that preupgrade offers to try to go to to fc17 in a single step, but it's not obvious if it's kidding me or itself.
Downtime should be minimized, so it's worth at least considering. Any experience?
The bottom line appears to be 13->15->17, at most two versions at a time. And it's going to be really ugly, because GNOME went away, or at any rate the name was jacked up and something utterly different put in, so I will have to migrate users to the nearest thing, XFCE.
I think the easy way is to drop in an SSD for root and clean install, then recustomize and mount the pieces. Maybe plug in a spare 8TB RAID on the eSATA and take another backup, I have two remote backups, but restoring over Gbit network will take way too long if I must.
Thanks for the pointers, it would appear that changing the network device names and putting something totally different in while still calling it GNOME is going to make the upgrade, or any automated upgrade past the changes, challenging on anything more than a simple desktop.
On 11/03/2012 10:07 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The bottom line appears to be 13->15->17, at most two versions at a time.
I don't know of any reason you can't go from 13->16. Going directly to 17 is only problematic because of the /usr merge, since anaconda needs to handle that.
And it's going to be really ugly, because GNOME went away, or at any rate the name was jacked up and something utterly different put in, so I will have to migrate users to the nearest thing, XFCE.
The nearest thing is probably Cinnamon, which is available in F17. Cinnamon is an alternative GNOME shell, which mostly resembles GNOME 2. That said, I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with the GNOME Shell. My mom uses it. A number of my friends use it. I use it. Only a few people that I know specifically don't like it.
I think the easy way is to drop in an SSD for root and clean install, then recustomize and mount the pieces. Maybe plug in a spare 8TB RAID on the eSATA and take another backup, I have two remote backups, but restoring over Gbit network will take way too long if I must.
Yes, clean installs are going to be the most reliable installation method, and backups are always recommended.
Thanks for the pointers, it would appear that changing the network device names and putting something totally different in while still calling it GNOME is going to make the upgrade, or any automated upgrade past the changes, challenging on anything more than a simple desktop.
The network device name is also optional. If you boot with the kernel arg "biosdevname=0", you won't get that behavior.
Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 11/03/2012 10:07 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The bottom line appears to be 13->15->17, at most two versions at a time.
I don't know of any reason you can't go from 13->16. Going directly to 17 is only problematic because of the /usr merge, since anaconda needs to handle that.
And it's going to be really ugly, because GNOME went away, or at any rate the name was jacked up and something utterly different put in, so I will have to migrate users to the nearest thing, XFCE.
The nearest thing is probably Cinnamon, which is available in F17. Cinnamon is an alternative GNOME shell, which mostly resembles GNOME 2. That said, I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with the GNOME Shell. My mom uses it. A number of my friends use it. I use it. Only a few people that I know specifically don't like it.
I think the easy way is to drop in an SSD for root and clean install, then recustomize and mount the pieces. Maybe plug in a spare 8TB RAID on the eSATA and take another backup, I have two remote backups, but restoring over Gbit network will take way too long if I must.
Yes, clean installs are going to be the most reliable installation method, and backups are always recommended.
Restores are hard, very long time to do one.
Thanks for the pointers, it would appear that changing the network device names and putting something totally different in while still calling it GNOME is going to make the upgrade, or any automated upgrade past the changes, challenging on anything more than a simple desktop.
The network device name is also optional. If you boot with the kernel arg "biosdevname=0", you won't get that behavior.
I changed it in the config file, but I wish the fix to base name on MAC was included in the distro as an option, since that's useful on servers where board location might not be constant.
-
Bill Davidsen -
Dave Stevens -
Gordon Messmer