yum upgrade from F17 to F18

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 20:16:50 +0100
Roberto Ragusa <mail at robertoragusa.it> wrote:

> Serious question: why usrmove is not doable?
> If you have all the dirs in your path, and move executable files from
> one place to another, why should this fail?

All your dynamic libraries move? You need selinux relabling? 

> I managed to do a 32 bit -> 64 bit transition (you know, the
> "absolutely unsupported" upgrade) on a system which was running an
> entire KDE session. My upgrade commands (rpm, yum, bash, everything
> else) started 32 bit, then were mixed, then ended to be 64 bit.
> Usrmove appears simpler. Am I missing something?

Would you advise all your friends to do one too? :) 

I think the thing people are missing here is that yum dist upgrades are
perfectly fine for advanced users who know how to work around problems
and use the tools, but aren't very good for well, everyone else. 

I have been using yum upgrades on some of my machines here for many
years, but there's often a weird broken dep or something I need to
tweak for it to work right, for example: 

* Every release there are a few packages that were removed, so when you
  upgrade to the new release you have to remove them yourself. 

* The Fedora release that switched to grub2 meant you had to re-install
  grub, and in the case of /boot on raid, had to repartition it to
  allow enough space for grub2 to fit. (I managed to do this fine, but
  I don't think many people would have wanted to). 

* The display manager re-work meant to you needed to set which DM you
  wanted

etc. Many of these things are covered by the yum upgrade wiki page, but
this is not a process many of our users will want to muck with. 

So, please try and think beyond your personal experiences and out to
all our users? I think having the option of a yum dist-upgrade is
excellent, but I don't think we should officially support it or ask
all our users to do it. 

kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20121109/e2ab1920/attachment.sig>