Seems to me that there's been *lots* of discussion on this, but . . .
1. What I *expect* is for an upgrade to mess up my system completely, so
I don't even bother trying; I just backup my personal files and do a
"from scratch" install. This is based on long and unhappy experience
with Linux upgrades, and also based on a personality quirk that doesn't
mind the from-scratch approach so much. Of course, I *never* install
"dot releases"; I only install when my system is getting way out of date
or I have new hardware or a new system that really calls out for an
upgrade.
2. What I would *like* for an upgrade is for it to "just work":
- For all packages which are still in their pristine, "out of the box"
form to simply be upgraded.
- For all packages which have been in any way customized to resolve
conflicts:
> If the /etc config files have been modified, and the format is the
same as before,
they should be left alone; if the format of the file has changed, my
customizations
should be preserved; if this is not possible, then the upgrade
should ask me to resolve
the conflicts by popping up an xterm, if nothing else, and letting
me use my favorite
editor to patch things up by hand, while showing me the info on the
changes.
Note that since my favorite editor (xvile) isn't in the Mandrake
distribution, this
implies that the upgrade takes place in something more like my
regular working
environment than the usual install environment.
> If I upgraded the package by installing a newer RPM, figuring out
which one is newer
and going with the latest one, unless the version on the new install
is the same as the
previous install, in which case I presumably downgraded it
deliberately.
> If I upgraded the package by replacing it with a tarball version,
noting that and
asking if I want the tarball version left alone, deleted and
replaced by the package,
or install the package without deleting the tarball. (Possible
since I always do
tarball installs to /usr/local, and RPMs never do.)
- To keep a log of any conflicts or questionable cases.
- To set things up so that for any packages which changed their
user-level setup, a sort of "mini install" would come up for each user
as they log in which would let them resolve conflicts in a similar
manner. Thus, if the new KDE desktop defaults change all around, give
the user with a customized desktop a chance to integrate the chnages if
they want.
Denis HAVLIK wrote:
>
> Hi, folks
>
> It feels strange when I have to reply to my own message but... I thought
> that "upgrade" is an extremely important topic, yet no one wants to
> discuss it. Does it mean that you are not interested (so we should stop
> worying about upgrade) or what? I repeat:
>
> :~>What do you expect from upgrade?
>
> cu
> Denis
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Denis Havlik <http://www.ap.univie.ac.at/users/havlik>
> Mandrakesoft ||| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Quality Assurance (@ @) (private: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> -------------------oOO--(_)--OOo---------------------
> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me
> spread! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
"Brian, the man from babble-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org
Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents.
Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com.
