On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 04:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/29/2009 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 13:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With all due respect to fedoraunity and you. To me it is a serious
Fedora management and rel-eng mistake causing major harm to
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 08:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 08:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 21:42 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 07/25/2009 08:56 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Fortunately I had read in this list that upgrading breaks Yum so I did a
fresh
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 08:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Anecdotal evidence means very little.
It may be news to you, but a single negative result invalidates a whole
series of positive tests ;)
This is not remotely true. If we work for 99 people and not for 1, we're
doing a much better job
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 13:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The worst about it: Unless rel-eng finally releases updated Fedroa 11
isos, the shameful situation about F11 installs will not see much
improvements, because anaconda being FIXED UPSTREAM/RAWHIDE doesn't
help FC11 users.
That would
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 15:37:18 -0700,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 13:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With all due respect to fedoraunity and you. To me it is a serious
Fedora management and rel-eng mistake causing major harm to fedora's and
RH's
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 18:30 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The first step should be getting anaconda updates in released versions.
That at least allows people to make their own custom spins. If that process
works smoothly, then later people might look at whether it is worth the
time for Fedora
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 13:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The worst about it: Unless rel-eng finally releases updated Fedroa 11
isos, the shameful situation about F11 installs will not see much
improvements, because anaconda being FIXED UPSTREAM/RAWHIDE doesn't
help
On 07/29/2009 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 13:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With all due respect to fedoraunity and you. To me it is a serious
Fedora management and rel-eng mistake causing major harm to fedora's and
RH's reputation to not provide updated media, thus
On 07/27/2009 07:33 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 07/26/2009 09:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/27/2009 07:33 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On 07/27/2009 11:26 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/27/2009 07:33 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius
On 07/27/2009 11:25 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 07/26/2009 09:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 07/27/2009 11:25 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de
wrote:
On 07/26/2009 09:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On 07/26/2009 09:06 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
can you tell me even one such distro+release when this happened?
it's never happened with any of the redhat, fedora, rhel releases.
fc1-fc2
fc6-fc7
rhel4-rhel5
It's not new.
Is this where we branch to
Hi.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:38:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
No, some people (me included) use tmpfs for /tmp , so this would
result into reboot, no packages found (if it did not hit a space
problem either).
Your problem, if you are using a non-reboot persistant /tmp
I'd think that
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Ralf Ertzingerfed...@camperquake.de wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:38:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
No, some people (me included) use tmpfs for /tmp , so this would
result into reboot, no packages found (if it did not hit a space
problem either).
On 07/27/2009 03:39 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Ralf Corsepius [27/07/2009 13:49] :
Your problem, if you are using a non-reboot persistant /tmp
Although data stored in /tmp may be deleted in a site-specific manner,
it is recommended that files and directories located in /tmp be deleted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/27/2009 11:26 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/27/2009 07:33 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP
On 07/26/2009 03:06 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Farkas Levente wrote:
who think about that his system will not working after doing
everything as it has to be. can you tell me any other distro
(including windows!) where the system installer not working after
upgrade?
It
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Farkas Levente wrote:
fc1-fc2
fc6-fc7
rhel4-rhel5
It's not new.
just to be correct neither fc6-fc7 nor rhel4-rhel5 break any system tools!
and i don't remember to fc1-fc2.
fc6-fc7 had a couple of fun metadata breaks
rhel4-rhel5 upgrades are neither supported
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 04:30:55PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Farkas Levente wrote:
fc1-fc2
fc6-fc7
rhel4-rhel5
It's not new.
just to be correct neither fc6-fc7 nor rhel4-rhel5 break any system
tools! and i don't remember to fc1-fc2.
fc6-fc7 had a couple
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 04:30:55PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Farkas Levente wrote:
fc1-fc2
fc6-fc7
rhel4-rhel5
It's not new.
just to be correct neither fc6-fc7 nor rhel4-rhel5 break any system
tools! and i don't
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 21:42 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 07/25/2009 08:56 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Fortunately I had read in this list that upgrading breaks Yum so I did a
fresh
install instead, and only had to spend a few days getting all the
configuration
back into shape. Sound
On 07/26/2009 08:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 21:42 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 07/25/2009 08:56 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Fortunately I had read in this list that upgrading breaks Yum so I did a fresh
install instead, and only had to spend a few days getting all the
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
It may be news to you, but a single negative result invalidates a whole
series of positive tests ;)
No, that means that they are bugs / problems but not that the feature
is broken in general.
--
fedora-devel-list
On 07/26/2009 08:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 21:42 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 07/25/2009 08:56 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Fortunately I had read in this list that upgrading breaks Yum so I did a fresh
install instead, and only had to spend a few days getting all the
On 07/26/2009 10:40 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
It may be news to you, but a single negative result invalidates a whole
series of positive tests ;)
No, that means that they are bugs / problems but not that the feature
is
oleksandr korneta wrote:
on 07/25/2009 11:46 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
I don't even upgrade anymore. I just keep two partitions (Logical
Volumes actually)--one for Fedora N and one for Fedora N+1.
interesting idea. Do you keep the same home for both?
I have two root partitions and two
I too have a half-upgraded system at my workplace, tried pushing a long jump
from Fedora8 to edora11 (and i think I fell in the ditch between them). I
will sit one of this afternoons and simply reinstall afresh, the only way
out, i think.
On my laptop however , I have three partitions Fedora n
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've seen
preupgrade mash up a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main reason
I don't think preupgrade is actually safe to use yet.
On 07/26/2009 02:38 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Björn Persson wrote:
Fortunately I had read in this list that upgrading breaks Yum so I did
a fresh
install instead, and only had to spend a few days getting all the
configuration
back into shape. Sound started working after I
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Farkas Levente wrote:
ohhh, come on!!! it's not an answer! it's just a proof that it's the worst
release ever. who dare to put a newer yum into f10-updates than in f11 iso?
Here's what happened. I was delaying updating yum in f10-updates, on
purpose. We slipped F11
On 07/26/2009 02:57 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Farkas Levente wrote:
ohhh, come on!!! it's not an answer! it's just a proof that it's the
worst release ever. who dare to put a newer yum into f10-updates than
in f11 iso?
Here's what happened. I was delaying updating yum in
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Farkas Levente wrote:
who think about that his system will not working after doing
everything as it has to be. can you tell me any other distro
(including windows!) where the system installer not working after
upgrade?
It happens all the time on lots of systems. I've
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've seen
preupgrade mash up a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main
reason
I don't think
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've
seen preupgrade mash up a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main
Ralf Corsepius said the following on 07/26/2009 11:35 AM Pacific Time:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've
seen
preupgrade mash up
On 07/26/2009 09:06 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
can you tell me even one such distro+release when this happened?
it's never happened with any of the redhat, fedora, rhel releases.
fc1-fc2
fc6-fc7
rhel4-rhel5
It's not new.
Is this where we branch to debate a release-number super-epoch?
-Bill
On 07/25/2009 03:15 PM, oleksandr korneta wrote:
But I dont complain, kind of got used to the idea that fedora is not
made for upgrades.
I haven't had the best of luck with anaconda/preupgrade, but yum + human
works pretty well. I've got a machine here doing my SOHO tasks that was
installed as
On 07/26/2009 09:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've
seen preupgrade mash up a box by
On 07/26/2009 09:34 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
Ralf Corsepius said the following on 07/26/2009 11:35 AM Pacific Time:
Are there bug numbers for these issues?
I filed some BZs for which I couldn't find as already filed by others
(some already were):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly
hi,
first of all i use linux since '94 so i've seen a few releases. and learned
to wait a few weeks before upgrade. now i try to upgrade from a few fully
update f10 to f11.
it's a nightmare!
on a 5 years old hardware with raid1 system and boot partition anaconda
crash with dmraid error while i
on a 5 years old hardware with raid1 system and boot partition anaconda
crash with dmraid error while i don't use dmraid just mdraid:-( and since
preupgrade also crash with the same error there is no way to properly
upgrade from the latest release to the next release! not even with nodmraid
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 04:41:53PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
md /boot is definitely broken, has been for ages and the bugs don't seem
to have been touched. It's also obvious nobody bothered to actually test
that case because the error paths in the install code don't actually
work for that case
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Alan Cox a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've seen
preupgrade mash up a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main reason
I don't think preupgrade
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote:
Fortunately the usual updating fedora-release, yum upgrade approach
worked on my boxes. I'd avoid preupgrade anyway it seems to like breaking
systems and leaving them half upgraded so you have to rescue the mess by
hand.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Farkas Levente wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Alan Cox
a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly
wrong. I've seen
preupgrade mash up a box
I wouldn't say Fedora 11 is that bad, but it has certainly has been
problematic for me as well. I have to agree with Alan Cox that all of
your issues were caused by preupgrade. The best thing to do is to create
a separate partition for your home folder, then replace the operating
system for
Fortunately I had read in this list that upgrading breaks Yum so I did a fresh
install instead, and only had to spend a few days getting all the configuration
back into shape. Sound started working after I deleted ~/.pulse.
The primary reason why Fedora 11 is the worst ever for me is a badly
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Alan Coxa...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've seen
preupgrade mash up a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main reason
I don't think preupgrade is actually safe to use yet.
My first thought
On 07/26/2009 12:41 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Alan Coxa...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've seen
preupgrade mash up a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main reason
I don't think preupgrade is
On 07/25/2009 06:37 PM, Brad Longo wrote:
I wouldn't say Fedora 11 is that bad, but it has certainly has been
problematic for me as well. I have to agree with Alan Cox that all of
your issues were caused by preupgrade. The best thing to do is to create
a separate partition for your home folder,
On 07/25/2009 08:56 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Fortunately I had read in this list that upgrading breaks Yum so I did a fresh
install instead, and only had to spend a few days getting all the configuration
back into shape. Sound started working after I deleted ~/.pulse.
and if you is broken then
Farkas Levente wrote:
it was a mistake to mention preupgrade. i use dvd to upgrade my system
only after the dvd installer crash i try preupgrade which also crash.
As it's Anaconda that does the work with both Preupgrade and the DVD, it's not
surprising that it crashed the same way both times.
Well I upgraded two systems from F10 to F11 using anaconda (booted the
DVD), run a yum update after that and it works just fine.
One of this systems have been running Fedora since FC4 and got updated
to F/FC N+1 using the same method and still works.
(FC4-FC5-FC6-F7-F8-F9-F10-F11)
Seems like
on 07/25/2009 11:46 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
I don't even upgrade anymore. I just keep two partitions (Logical
Volumes actually)--one for Fedora N and one for Fedora N+1.
interesting idea. Do you keep the same home for both?
I don't do upgrades either, since the time rh9 to fc1 didn't
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 3:15 PM, oleksandr korneta wrote:
on 07/25/2009 11:46 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
I don't even upgrade anymore. I just keep two partitions (Logical Volumes
actually)--one for Fedora N and one for Fedora N+1.
I took this one step forward. I keep 3 partitions Fedora N,
59 matches
Mail list logo
