ayo apt rawhide repositories

[Jim - 815 PIII]

Jef Spaleta wrote:
> rg wrote:
> 
>>can one keep up to date with Test 1 => Test 2 via that route?
> 
> 
> Can you? Better question, is updating from test 1 something you should
> be testing? Is this something the development side want you to test?
> 
> For recent rhl betas...upgrading from beta->beta or from beta->release
> has not been supported. Any beta testers that use to do that were
> working contrary to the engineering goals of the beta phase and were
> summarily shot, as per Red Hat Community Population Control guidelines,
> section 3 paragraph 1.

I have a working system that I brought up from RHL 8.0 through the 
phoebe betas, then to RHL 9. This system is still working and is stable. 
I upgraded this way because of no dependable CDROM burner for my system. 
It was broken from upgrading to RHL 8.0 from RHL 7.3. I couldn't burn 
good discs until Phoebe3. Then decided to just upgrade to version 9, via 
up2date.

I've had more trouble trying to go from RHL 7.3 to Severn and with doing 
a fresh install from discs.

My problem was caused by a driver for my 3com vortx boomerang card being 
not included with Severn. This caused Mozilla to lockup, GNOME to 
lockup, logging into terminal problems and a substantial amount of other 
problems.

Installing from a known state for the starting point of programs is an 
ideal. The ideal condition really doesn't do anything but foul up the 
beta testers machine to a random state.

I like the progressive upgrading that up2date, in conjunction with 
repositories, like rawhide allows. This puts all users to the most 
current programs, if they update. It is also a smaller scale for changes 
and will catch more programs from interacting with each other, in 
smaller increments.

> 
> Until the development side is ready to state that doing a major
> distribution upgrade without install media (like from a repository), or
> that a rolling release situation (like we have with ximian's desktop for
> example), is going to be a development priority. I'm not really sure its
> in the community's best interest for 'serious' beta testers to be trying
> to upgrade from test1 to test2 without the install media.

A dependable CD-burner might be needed though.

> 
> Though a discussion of the pros/cons of allowing non-install media
> release->release upgrades would probably be applicable now in certain
> places other than this list...with an eye towards influencing later
> release cycles. This "beta"/"test" cycle is more old policy than
> new....like the webside says..this is evolutionary change in process not
> revolutionary.
> 
> 

I agree, the evolutionary changes will make a better progressive 
distribution. I opt for the repositories and a more universal core 
installation so everyone can at least connect to the Internet, have a 
fair GUI (No 3D until sanity checked system), A fair amount of text 
based tools to help those without a GUI to install their programs. (by 
choice or hardware misfortune)

Anyway, I'm learning more about installing a beta that the older drivers 
are being removed. This introduces a lot of extra problems into the fold 
for longer termed RHL users. The 3com driver removal really caused a 
chain of problems for my severn beta installation.

Jim