[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Skipping releases on dist-upgrades [was: Re: Is this safe?? Chrome in Debian 6]



On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 04:04:04 -0400
> Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrei POPESCU
>> <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sb, 19 iul 14, 18:34:28, Tom H wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This was discussed on debian-devel@. I'm sure that if you asked
>>>> those who want this supported they'd tell you that this isn't what
>>>> was decided and if you asked those who didn't want this supported
>>>> they'd tell you that this is what was decided (unless I'm
>>>> mis-remembering the thread).
>>>
>>> http://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#system-status
>>>
>>> Direct upgrades from Debian releases older than 6.0 (squeeze) are
>>> not supported. Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes
>>> for Debian 6.0 to upgrade to 6.0 first.
>>
>> Thanks. I hadn't seen that. (And there's a typo: "upgrade to version
>> 7.0 first".)
>>
>> What do you want to bet though that there'll be a lot of pushback
>> against this in the form of a long email flame war?
>
> I doubt it. Most people running stable on a workstation will keep it up
> to date, they won't upgrade after missing an entire release. Most people
> running stable on a server are very keen on doing anything that will
> reduce the chance of having to reinstall, with ten years' worth of
> tweaks to add, and will follow the release notes to the letter.
>
> There will only be a few who claim that jumping a release is a great
> thing to do.

There's already been one thread about this on debian-devel@ and it was
a typical thread where the pro and con make their points but no
decision's reached. That discussion'll be back because there are
people who think that they ought to be able to go from squeeze-lts to
jessie in one step - and they'll tell you that one upgrade is safer
than two.


Reply to: