Request for info/help
Sorry if this reposts....not sure it got through the first time....
I am having a problem with a user and would like some clarification if I
did correct or incorrectly. Honest answers appreciated.
I performed some work for a company on a Debian Linux system with the
prompt on the system (no graphic frontends, etc) indicated it was a
Debian 3.0 (Woody) built. The initial issue was a user outside of the
company could not get an email sent to a user on the company's server.
The company I was performing the work for is using Exim for the mail
server, SMTP transactions are not logged.
Because of the above fact, I desired to move them to Postfix email. As
the system was showing me Woody build, I started dselect using the
repository for debian sarge stable build (as I have in the past
installed Sarge release candidates from 8/04). Dselect indicated
numberous upgrades available for the system (which the system needed
regardless). I started the update process, and Perl immediately
crashed. User data, email access from pop/smtp, passwords, etc, were
not effected, but web mail access via neomail was, needless to say,
broken.
In doing a little research, I found a Debian 2.2 cd (labeled disk1), a
Debian 3.0 cd (labeled disk1), and a Debian 3.1 cd (labeled disk1)
laying near this system. What I am thinking is that while they may have
upgraded enough of the Debian 2.2 for the prompt to indicate is was a
Woody 3.0 system, there was still quite a bit of 2.2 (the perl is what I
think was not upgraded), so that when the Perl 5.8.6 from the new stable
build tried to install, the stuff on the system was so old that the
install broke, and broke the perl that was on the system.
Question is - Are my assumptions correct? If anyone else has walked up
to the box seeing the prompt I did would they have had any issue in
trying the upgrade?
Just wondering,
Thanks...
Mark
begin:vcard
fn:Mark Huff
n:Huff;Mark
adr:;;;Bellambi;NSW;2518;Australia
email;internet:mhuff@pegasus.yi.org
tel;work:0422 904 650
tel;cell:0422 904 650
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
Reply to: