Re: Attempted upgrade
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Philip Charles wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
[...]
>
> Remember I am an idiot tester. In this case I was pretending to be
> someone who had installed an early version of slink from a CD set and who
> was quite satisfied with the system. So they had not bothered to follow
> the intermediate releases. This person probably used dselect to install
> new software and would slightly aprehensive about using dpkg to install
> packages. S/he would almost certainly be using a stock kernel.
> However, this user recognises that an upgrage should be made from 2.1 to
> 2.2. I knew my no. 2 system had not had general upgrades and would have
> older dpkg and apt. So the test upgrade was very informative.
Indeed ;-)
> The advice I would give to someone who was intending to upgrade would be
> to use the static versions of apt and dpkg in the upgrade directory
> regardless.
The UPGRADE.txt/html does just that.
Only it's not really needed when upgrading from 2.1rX (any X) and using
FTP/HTTP/local mirror; the 2.1rX apt already handles that fine. However, using
static apt/dpkg won't do any harm. Problem is that those versions use glibc2.1
hostname lookups, that aren't supported by older libc's, so when using static
apt, you need to know IP addresses of any FTP/HTTP mirror you use.
> Has the static dpkg in upgrade-i386 been fixed yet? Where do I get it?
Oh yes, I fixed it right away. http://panic.et.tudelft.nl/~costar/potato/ as
before. You can check the PGP sig of md5sum.dpkg.i386, it should be Raphael's
now.
> > > My no.2 machine is available for further upgrade testing. I have 1.3.1,
> > > 2.0.0 and 2.1 - I also have an old Infomagic set which I suspect has 1.0.0
> >
> > (AFAIK Debian jumped from 0.99 to 1.1, so I suspect your Infomagic set will
> > be 1.1)
>
> Infomagic was the outfit that issued 1.0, and yes, I was one of the people
> put off Debian as a result. My first successful install of Debian was
> from Infomagic's 1.2 (Rex) and even then I had to download a whole raft of
> packages and I don't want to go through that again! I will work from Bo,
> 1.3.1
Okay, that's allright. Feel free to do whatever you want ;-)
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
Reply to: