yum upgrade paths

[Dan Horák]

Jon Ciesla píše v Po 15. 12. 2008 v 08:26 -0600:
> > Another topic I find interesting especially for servers is the yum
> > upgrade path;
> >
> > If you download the fedora-release package for Fedora N+1, along with
> > it's dependency fedora-release-notes of course, and install it, you
> > should find a large number of updates available to the system.
> >
> > Needless to say, either a "yum update" or a "yum upgrade", even when
> > just applied to specific packages only, should update the system to
> > whatever packages Fedora N+1 has to offer. Long story short, you should
> > end up with a Fedora N+1 system. The key word being "should".
> >
> > Although this is not a very feasible way to upgrade servers (as it may
> > interrupt services running on the system because of the replacement of
> > binaries and libraries), I'm not stabbing at this for the concern of
> > stability -as obviously when from your point of view you need stability
> > what the he^H^H are you doing installing Fedora on the server.
> >
> > Sometimes, like with Fedora Core 1 to Fedora Core 2 upgrades, you will
> > find yourself behind to console to accompany the change to using udev;
> > there's not much we can do about that.
> >
> > Sometimes though, and this is where I get back to the actual point of
> > this message, like with the upgrade from Fedora 8 to Fedora 9, as it
> > turns out there's no upgrade path for essential packages like openssl;
> > Here's why:
> >
> > openssl on a Fedora 8 system has a newer NEVRA then the available
> > package in Fedora 9+Updates. This causes yum and rpm to disregard the
> > Fedora 9 openssl package as an update although in Fedora 8, openssl is
> > the package that offers the libssl.so.6 library a lot of other packages
> > depend upon. In Fedora 9, this library is called libssl.so.7. Needless
> > to say, if the Fedora 9 version of the openssl packages does not end up
> > on the to-be-upgraded system as an update or upgrade, a lot of packages
> > depending on libssl.so.6 won't be upgraded, and the packages depending
> > on libssl.so.7 won't be upgraded either.
> >
> > Now, to put this into perspective, my servers at home run Fedora, both
> > as a testing ground, because I need recent stuff to do stuff with and
> > because I find the well-known derivatives a little boring.
> >
> > Is the Server SIG interested in pursuing a package maintainer guideline
> > that requires Fedora N+X should _always_ have newer NEVRA then Fedora N?
> 
> As a LiveUpgradeSIG member http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/LiveUpgrade
> and someone who also runs runs home servers on Fedora, I give this an
> extremely emphatic +500.

This is a general Fedora issue affecting all groups. There used to be
some "Broken upgrade paths" reports, IIRC, but can't recall when I had
last seen them.


		Dan