Re: upgrade still not working good.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> the new apt asks "please put in cd xyz" till it got all packages.
> the old apt in slink failes for all packages not on the current cd.
Correct, with "new apt"=="apt from 2.1r4 and higher" and "old apt"=="apt from
2.1r3 and below".
> the potato install cd must include all software that is necessary or
> helpfull for an upgrade slink -> potato, and ist must have detailed
> instructions how to do the update.
>
> maybe my apt was older than i thought, but for the potato cdrom debian
> must use debian slink 2.1r0 as reference. maybe even think about
> older software (pre slink or hamm).
Agreed. Like the 2.1 CDs had the latest-apt-for-hamm that you had to install
before trying to upgrade, the 2.2 CDs should have the latest-apt-for-slink.
> also the instructions on the cdrom should include a big fat warning,
> not to try the update or instalaltion with dpkg-multicd or an old apt.
People over at -boot are (read "will hopefully be") writing these
instructions, so please complain there ;-) We at -cd can't/won't change those
things.
> last
> > I don't know, but I didn't try either ;-). But if you were running apt from
> > potato on a slink system, weren't there any dependency conflicts with e.g.
> > libc6.1?
>
> my guess is: dpkg-multicd had resolved some problems till it got to
> a point where it was not doing anything usefull.
Ah, that would explain some things.
To everyone reading: if you happen to do some upgrade, please make a
typescript of it so we can check things easily. `man script' for details.
> this was not a clean test, rather the reactivation of an old linux
> installation not used for a long time. a more professional test
> might proofe better that somethings works, but this is also ok
> to find problems. without proper documentation some people will
> have similiar problems.
>
> > Can someone enlighten me: is it _POSSIBLE_ to compile the latest apt on a hamm
> > system? I mean, making a .deb package. I expect problems with debhelper etc.
>
> what about a static compiled apt ? sure, it's big and fat and ugly,
> but for the sole purpose of an update it might do it's job well.
Very good idea! (Should have been mine ;-)
Regards (& good night),
Anne Bezemer
Reply to: