Redhat 8 to 9

[Panu Matilainen]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Eric Rostetter wrote:

> Quoting Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at welho.com>:
> 
> > Apt follows it's own extremely strict requirement of leaving no
> > unsatisfied dependencies after any given operation to the point of
> > self-termination.
> 
> Which is probably good.
> 
> > When doing dist-upgrades with apt you should always
> > point it to all the target distro version's third party repositories
> > you're using, not just the OS itself to avoid these things (and actually
> > get a much smoother upgrade).
> 
> I only use FL stuff.  Problem was I was using the FL apt for 8.0 (testing,
> no release), and there is no RL apt for 9, so it had no chance...  This
> is a big problem with FL right now (missing yum and apt packages for
> various OS versions) that I really wish was a higher priority than it seems
> to be.  But that's life...

Ok - that's obviously a problem without a solution currently :(

> 
> > Mm.. that's a bit unclear sentence perhaps,
> > what I mean is that if you're using lets say RHL 9 with freshrpms and want
> > to upgrade to FC1, you need to point apt to FC1 os component AND freshrpms
> > built for FC1 before proceeding with the upgrade.
> 
> It was clear the first time.  My problem is lack of FL support for APT/YUM
> plain and simple.  I appreciate the work done by you and others on getting
> apt and yum out for FL.  Don't get me wrong, I *really* appreciate all your
> work.  Unfortunately, more work needs to be done yet in this area.
> 
> Since the "official" advise on the FL web site is to use apt or yum, we
> should make getting an apt/yum for each OS a high priority, IMHO.

Indeed. I've been watching the FL apt package being stuck in QA for a 
long, long time for no particularly good reason and Jason has probably 
gotten totally fed up with the situation. I personally dont unfortunately 
have time or resources to test and verify on old RHL versions, but as far 
as I can tell by just looking at the package in QA it's perfectly ready 
for publishing. It might not be perfect but it still beats the hell out of 
telling people to use apt from freshrpms or so because all the other 
packagings of apt lack a significant amount of functionality compared to 
the fedora.us/fedoralegacy version.

Or to cut it short: publish the damn apt package in QA, there's nothing
terribly wrong with it. You can always publish update to it later (news at 
eleven, bugs are found and new version gets released)

	- Panu -