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

Re: Fedora Core 6 ROCKS ! Salute to the developers !

David G. Miller wrote:

Since you edit your configuration files to aa great degree, do you just replace the files from the new install or go through each to note format changes? Upgrades leave rpmnew or rpmsave files, so short of losing out on technological changes, what would make one be better than the other. Merging config files from rpmsave or rpmnew files should serve the same function.

I tend to work from both ends. System stuff in /etc gets the new installation configuration. After the install is done I try to figure out what needs to be changed and "bring forward" whatever I customized. This means I tend to maintain a stable system while I try to figure out what else needs to be changed.

Sounds like a wise practice. I was wondering what putting back the previous configuration files would gain for the newly installed system. comparing saved backups for upgraded configurations sounded pretty much the same outcome. edited config files are usually saved on upgrades, so comparison with these files would be very similar to saved backup versions, except a new install will not cue you into the changed files as easily as with an upgraded installation.

User stuff gets restored and then fixed if its broken. So, on the laptop I mentioned, I edit /etc/sysconfig/iptables, /etc/fstab, etc. to bring them back to where I want while the various user rc and configuration files just get dropped into place. If something breaks, I back out the change and go from fresh. I still have the original config file as reference.

Less system critical files should be alright to do this with. I guess with no complaints, things go alright.

BTW, speaking of CDs... it appears that a default install only requires the first three CDs. I didn't even bother to burn CDs 4 through 6 for the x86_64 install. I had the ISOs downloaded in case I needed them but didn't. For everything beyond a default install, I just pulled stuff with yum.

I believe there was a lot of work by the distribution developers to get this to work for default installs. It sure beats needing disk 5 for one random package which gets placed there, if you only want a default system installed and build it up from there.

The other problems are obsoletion and unsupported packages. Rhetorical question: what should an upgrade do if a user program is now obsolete and the replacement is one of several different programs? Unsupported packages are even worse for a distro like Fedora or RHEL. I run xmms-mp3. What should Fedora or Red Hat do when I upgrade? Hint: their lawyer may disagree with your solution.

Leave it broken, the application of updates after the install is finished should allow the program to function again as intended.

Works well for user apps but I lived through the evolution of ipfwadm -> ipchains -> iptables. Need to be careful with system stuff. It would be nice to see core functionality supported for upgrades even if every oddball app isn't. One of the arguments against supporting upgrades is, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." That is, once a release supports a platform, why change. As with my laptop example, there are good reasons to upgrade from an OS release that only marginally supports a hardware platform to one that fully supports it. Let's hope somebody at Fedora/RH listens.

I remember ipchains but not ipfwadm. Anyway system critical packages should be upgraded or left intact when upgrading a system.



"I remember when I was a kid I used to come home from Sunday School and
 my mother would get drunk and try to make pancakes."
-- George Carlin

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