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

Re: Checking dependencies in packages selected for installation



Tim:
>> For those updating a system with quite a few things already on it, it's
>> a common recommendation to first uninstall some of the larger things,
>> like OpenOffice.org.

Sam Varshavchik:
> That's not a valid excuse.

While I agree it's not a wonderful thing to have to do, the fact is that
doing an upgrade involves a lot of work.  Minimising the workload,
beforehand, will lessen the time it takes to do its thing.

> I have my own packaging tool I use for managing my own software.  I
> got so sick and tired of rpm, last year, that I wrote my own, to
> manage by own code.  I can import rpm dependencies into my own
> database (which will NEVER get corrupted like rpm regularly does, see 
> below).  It takes me only a minute or two, to suck out all
> dependencies out of rpm, via perl-RPM2.  And, on a beat up old Celeron
> 500, it takes only another three minutes to reconcile RPM's
> dependencies against mine's, and identify any conflicts.  There is no
> reason, whatsoever, that this crap should take an hour to figure out,
> in anaconda.

If you do avoid their own tools, you are on you own to resolve problems.
Though, having said that, I'm sure there would be people interested in a
better system.  You're not the only one who's been put off by the time
involved in an upgrade, as well as the potential problems.

The last time I tried an upgrade was around the Red Hat 6 or 7 era, and
that didn't take a huge amount of time to complete (longer than a fresh
install, though), but it did have some problems, post install.  There
are quite a few horror stories on this list about how badly that worked
with Fedora, and how long, too.

> The real ugly truth here is that the upgrade path in anaconda is being 
> neglected for commercial reasons.

I don't know if I'd come to that conclusion.  I could easily believe
that someone thinks it's just too hard to do well.  I'm less inclined to
believe that there's an ulterior motive behind it.

> If the 800lb gorilla I deal with, daily, is a typical RHAS licensee -- and I 
> have no reason to think that they're not -- most RHAS customers do not 
> upgrade their servers.  The servers are all network clients, and RHAS 
> gets upgraded on the servers just by loading a new install image.

I think you'll find a lot of people don't upgrade their servers.  It's a
big task, that involves more than just loading software.  There's custom
configurations that took a long time to get where they wanted them to
be, plus the data.

I still run FC4 on my servers.  I've tried out FC5 and FC6 on the
clients, haven't seen a great motivating factor to convince me it's
worth all the hard work in upgrading the server.  Plus the fact that I
see more problems with the two of them than I've resolved with FC4.

For me, it probably isn't going to be an upgrade of the server.  I'll
probably set up a new server, and transfer data over once it's been
running for a while without falling over.

-- 


Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.


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