On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > This mail is just a reply to Javier's points. I'll follow up with a second > mail with a proposal for a procedure 'C'. > > On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:17, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > Ok. I'll see how I can fit that into the release notes. In any case, > > after going through some of the issues with new kernels (like device > > reordering), it would be best to advise people to keep an old kernel > > around (if using 2.4). > > I would even advise that for 2.6. We will have to make a point in the Release Notes in "preparing for upgrade" > > Ok. That should be said first then. Since the task-desktop in sarge > > installed both KDE and GNOME it makes sense to tell users with any of > > those installed to remove and then use tasksel to pull the Desktop > > environment again. It has the benefit of making this it easier to do > > the upgrade if you are tight on disk space (less needs to be downloaded > > prior to upgrade) > > I totally disagree with that: > 1) telling users to uninstall half their system as part of an upgrade > just plain ugly But the steps you mentioned initially (removing synaptic -> removing GNOME) already did that! If you have the desktop task in sarge installed it means: synaptic removed -> GNOME removed -> Desktop task removed -> KDE removed. Doesn't it? > 2) users will in general not have only a plain default desktop environment > installed, but will have installed additional packages that depend on > the desktop environment; your proposal would remove those packages as > well with no sane way to know which packages would need to be > reinstalled later It's not my proposal, it was yours (Option B of your initial mail) > > I think both should be documented and, consequently, we need to rewrite > > the part that says that "aptitude" is best for upgrades. > > Yes, we should if we decide to go with the second method. We will also > have to drop the instructions for upgrading aptitude first. I think we should go for the second method, the first one is too error prone > An additional instruction should be check that the option "Automatically > upgrade installed packages" is set before pressing "g" a first time. Pressing "g" where? In the second method aptitude is used in a non-interactive way. > > This "making sure" is very dangerous, I agree with you that this should > > be the 2nd option. > > How is it dangerous? In aptitude it is a question of pressing "g" and > searching for "kernel" and pressing "+" if it is marked for removal. This is dangerous because many users do not know their way around aptitude and might not do that manual review properly. > > I'd rather have it described in the Release Notes, that is what gets > > shipped off with the CDs, relying on online documentation is not good > > (unless it's stuff not needed for the upgrade but just "for reference") > > I don't think it is a good idea to fully document two different and > partially conflicting methods. My idea was to document it in the wiki and > link to that from the RN. However, from a translation viewpoint it may be > better to have it in the RN, but then I would suggest an appendix. An Appendix sounds fine to me. Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature