On 7/26/2011 10:18 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind that the Linux kernel itself makes no concessions to
>> backwards compatibility and demands that all related modules be
>> recompiled to match changes.
>
> One of my paragraphs originally included a fairly lengthy passage on kernel
> ABI c
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:45:42 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Keep in mind that the Linux kernel itself makes no concessions to
> backwards compatibility and demands that all related modules be
> recompiled to match changes.
One of my paragraphs originally included a fairly lengthy passage on k
On 7/26/2011 9:03 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> I'm sure that some of these major upgrades *can* be done, but in a land where
> the package is the unit of OS granularity, and package maintenance practices
> vary from package to package as to 'upgradeableness,' it really becomes a
> task, and this is
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 01:51:18 AM 夜神 岩男 wrote:
> This is roughly what Microsoft used to aim for (somewhere on the road
> between XP and 8 they seem to have totally quit the idea, though).
As a slightly off-topic aside, there is a youtube video out there about doing
just that; the video shows
Several points (all for "enterprises I've worked at")
1) Folks tend to hold onto hardware WAY past the expiration date. We
still have SunFire v1xx boxes alive and some x86 boxes that aren't 64
bit capable. If they want the latest OS, buy new hardware.
2) I've never seen an OS upgraded across majo
On 07/26/2011 02:07 PM, Mike Burger wrote:
>> But you are missing the point -- WHY spend the engineering
>> effort on trying to support such Major 'upgradeany's? A new
>> deployment takes mere minutes for a commercial shop, and by
>> NOT supporting such explicitly, the upstream avoids much
>> sup
On 07/26/2011 01:32 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Mike Burger wrote:
>
>> If IBM can make this happen for their OS, and Red Hat certainly supports
>> such a process in the Fedora line of releases (including the ability to
>> list additional repositories for remote installation as pa
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:07:36AM -0400, Mike Burger wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Mike Burger wrote:
> > But you are missing the point -- WHY spend the engineering
> > effort on trying to support such Major 'upgradeany's? A new
> > deployment takes mere minutes for a commercial shop, and by
>
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Mike Burger wrote:
>
>> If IBM can make this happen for their OS, and Red Hat certainly supports
>> such a process in the Fedora line of releases (including the ability to
>> list additional repositories for remote installation as part of the
>> process), they could certainl
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 10:05 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Craig White wrote:
>
> > you made a vacuous argument.
>
> Hunh. You are ** still ** trolling here [arguing against
> package management] and on this thread [C 6 matters], Craig?
>
> I thot back on June 13 you said her
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Mike Burger wrote:
> If IBM can make this happen for their OS, and Red Hat certainly supports
> such a process in the Fedora line of releases (including the ability to
> list additional repositories for remote installation as part of the
> process), they could certainly make i
> Am 24.07.2011 14:04, schrieb Always Learning:
>>
>> The challenge is how to do an easily transition from one major version
>> to its successor version with the least physical, emotional,
>> intellectual and time-consuming effort.
>
> Paul,
>
> as much as I understand your point of view, I must d
On 07/25/2011 10:49 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> The context for the issue was someone moving from 5.x to 6.x.
Still normal procedures apply: port to the new platform and/or rebuild
for the new platform, test on the new platform, rinse & repeat, verify,
give seal of approval, package and finally de
On 7/25/2011 3:34 PM, Patrick Lists wrote:
>
>> My condition in that case was that you couldn't count on the RPM to work
>> anyway once the distribution changes. So you'll likely be repeating
>> that extra effort anyway.
>
> Not sure what you mean with "once the distribution changes" but within a
On 07/25/2011 07:26 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
[snip]
> My condition in that case was that you couldn't count on the RPM to work
> anyway once the distribution changes. So you'll likely be repeating
> that extra effort anyway.
Not sure what you mean with "once the distribution changes" but within a
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 7/25/2011 11:37 AM, Patrick Lists wrote:
>>
> Installing non RPM software on an RPM Distro like CentOS is frowned
> upon. That is the worst way to do it.
why?
>> In the RHEL environments where I have worked, installing non RPM
>> software was more th
On 7/25/2011 12:05 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
>
>> else has already done it. That is, building an RPM is always more work
>> than doing a source install and often imposes inconvenient restraints
>> like only permitting a single version to be running at once, and doesn't
>> give you any guarantee that
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 7/25/2011 11:37 AM, Patrick Lists wrote:
>>
> Installing non RPM software on an RPM Distro like CentOS is frowned
> upon. That is the worst way to do it.
> else has already done it. That is, building an RPM is always more work
> than doing a
On 7/25/2011 11:37 AM, Patrick Lists wrote:
>
Installing non RPM software on an RPM Distro like CentOS is frowned
upon. That is the worst way to do it.
>>>
>>> why?
>>>
>>> you made a vacuous argument.
>>>
>> @Craig: I retract that. Probably something that is discouraged,
>> rathe
On 07/25/2011 06:07 PM, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Craig White wrote:
>> On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 19:51 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
>>> Installing non RPM software on an RPM Distro like CentOS is frowned
>>> upon. That is the worst way to do it.
>>
>> why?
>>
>> you m
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Craig White wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 19:51 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> Installing non RPM software on an RPM Distro like CentOS is frowned
>> upon. That is the worst way to do it.
>
> why?
>
> you made a vacuous argument.
>
@Craig: I retract that.
On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:22:37 AM R P Herrold wrote:
> 1.24 looks 'doable', although perhaps not without some C6
> libraries -- I see it in rawhide, and in F, after F13, as I
> recall
I managed to get 1.24.x (VM is shut down right now due to VMware update
'things' going on, so can't check sp
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Lamar Owen wrote:
> The specific example of zoneminder is particularly
> insidious. On our zoneminder systems, even point updates to
> certain libraries has created problems. A good, modern,
> package of zoneminder in a repo somewhere would save a lot
> of grief in that
On Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:20:07 PM Thomas Dukes wrote:
> I'll be moving to Ubunto.
Never heard of Ubunto
> They have a 3 year window for support on a
> distribution unlike CentOS/RHEL.
Right; RHEL has a seven year window, four years longer.
> They seem to be more user friendly for a
> h
On Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:25:56 PM Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 24.07.2011 02:00, schrieb Thomas Dukes:
>
> > When I say non-rpm, I mean source packages I compiled such as zoneminder.
>
> And even *if* you would be able to upgrade from CentOS 5.x to 6 -
> technically and by personal skills -
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Craig White wrote:
> you made a vacuous argument.
Hunh. You are ** still ** trolling here [arguing against
package management] and on this thread [C 6 matters], Craig?
I thot back on June 13 you said here:
> easier just to give up - I moved my new servers to ubuntu -
> n
On Sat, July 23, 2011 19:36, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Thomas Dukes wrote:
>
>> I use to be able to upgrade by doing a 'yum update'. That doesn't
>> work either.
>
> CentOS ships no non-RPM packaged packages -- look to whoever
> put those packages on your box without using the pack
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:33:41AM -0400, Thomas Dukes wrote:
>
> Huh??
RHEL/CentOS are supported 7 years from date of release to EOL date.
RHEL has an optional extended support plan that you can purchase if you
are a RHEL subscriber; CentOS does not offer this extended support as
upstream does n
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Eero Volotinen
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:52 AM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Upgrading from CentOS 5.6 to 6.0
>
> > I'll
> I'll be moving to Ubunto. They have a 3 year window for support on a
> distribution unlike CentOS/RHEL. They seem to be more user friendly for a
> home networking environment.
RHEL is supported for 10 years on each major release.
--
Eero
___
CentOS ma
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 19:51 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> Installing non RPM software on an RPM Distro like CentOS is frowned
> upon. That is the worst way to do it.
why?
you made a vacuous argument.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner,
t; > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Upgrading from CentOS 5.6 to 6.0
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dukes
> > wrote:
> > > Just ran the installation DVD but there is no option to 'upgrade'.
> > > Looked at the RHEL docs,
> >
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 22:20 -0400, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> The compliation of ffmpeg/zoneminder seems to be an issue
> with CentOS with the outdated php/mysql and other various libs.
PHP and MySQL work fine for me. My systems depend on both these being
reliable, efficient, dependable and robust -
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:20:07PM -0400, Thomas Dukes wrote:
>
> I have never had a problem upgrading a CentOS release since I started with
> 3.x. Seems now, I can't even upgrade from 5.6 to 5.7. I have never had to do
> a complete re-install since moving from Slackware 1.x to Redhat 2.x except
>
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Lanny Marcus
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 8:51 PM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Upgrading from CentOS 5.6 to 6.0
>
> On Sat, Jul 23,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> Just ran the installation DVD but there is no option to 'upgrade'. Looked at
> the RHEL docs,
> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installati
> on_Guide/ch-guimode-x86.html#id4594292 referenced off the CentOS Rel
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 15:59 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Paul,
>
> as much as I understand your point of view, I must disagree taking
> upstream's and CentOS's position. Your description reflects a home user
> or an administrator with just less than a handful of systems.
Alexander,
I have
Am 24.07.2011 14:04, schrieb Always Learning:
>
> On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 08:30 -0300, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
>
>> My point is that big changes happen in Linux much frequently than in
>> Solaris and even Solaris sometimes doesn't support these kinds of
>> upgrades.
>
> It is the inevitable and ti
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 08:30 -0300, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> My point is that big changes happen in Linux much frequently than in
> Solaris and even Solaris sometimes doesn't support these kinds of
> upgrades.
It is the inevitable and time-consuming upheaval which many will
probably find dauntin
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> Red Hat does not support upgrades between major versions (doesn't necessarily
> mean it's not possible)
> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installation_Guide/ch-upgrade-x86.html
> http://linsec.ca/blog/2011/02
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> When I say non-rpm, I mean source packages I compiled such as zoneminder.
>> CentOS ships no non-RPM packaged packages -- look to whoever
>> put those packages on your box without using the packaging
>> system if you feel the need to blame someone
[clea
Am 24.07.2011 02:00, schrieb Thomas Dukes:
> When I say non-rpm, I mean source packages I compiled such as zoneminder.
And even *if* you would be able to upgrade from CentOS 5.x to 6 -
technically and by personal skills - what makes you think that your self
compiled software would not completely
[CentOS] Upgrading from CentOS 5.6 to 6.0
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Thomas Dukes wrote:
>
> > I use to be able to upgrade by doing a 'yum update'. That
> doesn't work
> > either.
>
> A low skill user was never able to go from 2.1 to 3, nor 3 to
> 4
_
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of Giovanni Tirloni
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 6:54 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Upgrading from CentOS 5.6 to 6.0
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Thomas Dukes wrote:
Help!
Just
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> I use to be able to upgrade by doing a 'yum update'. That doesn't work
> either.
A low skill user was never able to go from 2.1 to 3, nor 3 to
4, nor 4 to 5, and an a minimally skilled will not be able
to go from 5 to 6. This is the policy of the upst
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> Help!
>
> Just ran the installation DVD but there is no option to 'upgrade'. Looked
> at
> the RHEL docs,
>
> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installati
> on_Guide/ch-guimode-x86.html#id4594292 referenced off
Help!
Just ran the installation DVD but there is no option to 'upgrade'. Looked at
the RHEL docs,
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installati
on_Guide/ch-guimode-x86.html#id4594292 referenced off the CentOS Release
notes but the CentOS installation doesn't offer th
47 matches
Mail list logo
