Fedora 2 Final - yum/up2date vs. ISO's

[David L Norris]

On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 12:52, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
> > The Fedora Core 2 installation, at the very least, needs to be run under
> > kernel 2.6.
> This is true.  The first thing I did was install 2.6.0-test9 back a few
> months ago (at 1.6.5-1.358 now), and then upgrade the other packages in
> increments, seems to work fine.  I haven't had any issues with this
> approach, my system is running better than before... aside from new bugs
> in kernel 2.6.5-1.x...

In the thread I mentioned, Jeremy Katz suggested that rolling updates
may be less problematic.  Where you start with FC1 then incrementally go
forward tracking rawhide through time.  I did this on my laptop and it
more or less worked fine.  At FC2T3 I installed from CD just to clean
out any junk and make sure the installer worked.  (The installer didn't
work with the two previous tests on my laptop...)  But a normal "yum
update" from the standard FC1 to FC2 may break badly on some systems.

> > Some discussion on the topic:
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-April/msg01102.html
> 
> The e-mail seems to insinuate its technically impossible?  I can attest
> to quite the contrary...

It's technically impossible in some important upgrade scenarios.  Not to
say it will never work.  They're just saying it will never work in every
conceivable situation.  If you want to ensure your system actually
functions after upgrade then reboot to an installation CD and perform
the upgrade.

-- 
 David Norris
  http://www.webaugur.com/dave/
  ICQ - 412039
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20040516/2bf2d965/attachment.bin