Re: Upgrading to etch.
Qua, 2007-04-11 às 12:34 -0400, hendirk@topoi.pooq.com escreveu:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 06:20:38PM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> > Qua, 2007-04-11 às 17:28 +0200, Alexander Wirt escreveu:
> > > Luis Matos schrieb am Mittwoch, den 11. April 2007:
> > >
> > > > Putting etch in sources.list and removing backports always works.
> > > >
> > > > (using dist-upgrade)
> > > >
> > > > versions in backports are always smaller than testing, wich makes the
> > > > transition easier.
> > > I have a BIG BIG BIG disclaimer here, as we don't stop sarge-bpo it can
> > > happen that versions in sarge-bpo can be greater than in etch which can lead
> > > to broken upgrade paths from sarge -> etch.
> > yes, yes ...
> >
> > agreed
> >
> > the answear to it is to use etch + backports entries in sources.list.
> >
> > These two cases should be documented as guide to users that don't know
> > how to handle it.
>
> Upgrading sarge to etch, without backports isn't easy. They've been
> rewriting the release notes for months now trying to get a clean upgrade
> path (I think they think they are there now). It looks as if it's a lot
> more difficult than just changing the sources.list entry.
lol ... the question here is not to have a clean upgrade (it's seems
impossible), but to find a way where users *can* upgrade.
For example, if versions of packages in bpo are higher that the ones in
etch, the upgrade simply breaks... you can advice the users before they
come here and start asking for how to solve this.
Upgrding is never easy. For example the udev migration is not easy, but
still ... let's break the user's system the less possible.
>
> -- hendrik
>
> > >
> > > Just to let you know
> > >
> > > Your friendly ftp-master
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> >
Reply to: