On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 02:12:39AM -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote: > The biggest problem you might run into is some config files in your home
But these are not "binaries" and is true of almost any upgrade anyway... > What you want to do - copy these files to a floppy: > /etc/shadow > /etc/group > /etc/passwd Why? The upgrade should handle this. I have these files successfully upgraded since RH5.0 (every increment since then), and never had a problem. > If you don't have a burner - I *really* recommend you have a friend burn > the iso's. Really. I'd suggest just installing from the iso images in that case. Much easier. > On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 00:36, Jim Wilferling wrote: > > Alright, so I'm annoyed. Just learning linux, and I've gone > > through 7.2, 8.0, and was anticipating 8.1. so now there's 9.0, > > so what....I've tried to install 8.1 beta rpms, and there were > > worse problems than there were with 8.0. So we cope....I'm not > > about to switch distros so quickly, just cause of some version > > hullaboo. But I want the new release, If it contains gnome 2.2. > > Heres the rub. When they say binary incompatable, will my /home > > dir, which is its own partition, mess up a new9.0 istall? > > should I delete all my /home/Jim/.* files? And does this binary > > incompatability mean that I wont ever be able to just upgrade > > rpms on the fly? If not, is there a way to mount a disc image > > without it being on a disc? (I dont have a burner.) It mostly means that rpms build on a RH9 system will not likely run on RH8 or RH7, etc. That's all. RPMs built on older systems should probably still install on RH9 (due to backward compatibility of libs). It's not a big deal. When you went from RH7.x to RH8.0 you hit the same hurdle. The world did not end then did it? > > Basically, I'm game, But does it brown the food? Just depends. -- Hal Burgiss -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
