Bug#608022: make it clear that only upgrades from lenny are supported
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:11:06AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Witold Baryluk wrote:
> > On 12-26 13:53, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> >> Upgrades skipping one release are not, and have never been, supported.
> [...]
> > But on http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html
> >
> > there is no explicit reference to etch, few times there is mention about
> > lenny, but only as starting assumption, to simplify text.
> > This chapter is even titled "Upgrades from previous releases"
> > (plural), suggesting it is supported somehow.
This is not good.
> Chapter 1 "Introduction" says:
>
> Please note that we only support and document upgrading from the
> previous release of Debian (in this case, the upgrade from 5.0).
> If you need to upgrade from older releases, we suggest you read
> previous editions of the release notes and upgrade to 5.0 first.
Use of release number only may confuse people. "5.0 (lenny)" may be
better.
> But Chapter 4 "Upgrades from previous releases" only says:
>
> 4.1. Preparing for the upgrade
>
> We suggest that before upgrading you also read the information
> in Chapter 5, Issues to be aware of for squeeze. That chapter
> covers potential issues not directly related to the upgrade
> process but which could still be important to know about before
> you begin.
>
> [...]
> 4.2. Checking system status
>
> The upgrade process described in this chapter has been designed
> for upgrades from “pure” lenny systems without third-party
> packages. For the greatest reliability of the upgrade process,
> you may wish to remove third-party packages from your system
> before you begin upgrading.
>
> This procedure also assumes your system has been updated to the
> latest point release of lenny. If you have not done this or are
> unsure, follow the instructions in Section A.1, “Upgrading your
> lenny system”.
>
> Perhaps this should make explicit (between the two paragraphs of 4.2)
> that
>
> It is not suggested to skip major Debian releases when upgrading
> between stable releases.
This is a bit redundant and uses weak statement of "suggest".
(The following paragraph uses "assumes" too)
Why not make following paragraph stronger as:
Your system must have been updated to the latest stable point release of
lenny. If you have not done this or are unsure, follow the instructions
in Section A.1, “Upgrading your lenny system”.
My questing is "How backports should we mention backports?"
> and the chapter be retitled to something like "Upgrades from lenny".
> Other possible improvements?
Let's think along Chapter 4 "Upgrades from Debian 5.0 (lenny)"
Osamu
Reply to: