Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 fedora's and RH's reputation to not provide updated media, thus to expose users to known bugs. I can't think of any major distro that actually does this. And? Isn't Fedora about innovation? Sure, but we do have a process for innovation ;). As I've mentioned in other mails, I'm not actually against this happening, but it has to be a significant project, handled properly, which involves bringing in extra people, or else it wouldn't run very well. It's a very big effort that would take much manpower away from working on the installer and releng tasks for the next release. The discussion about whether that compromise would be justified has not been done yet. It's not as simple as you suggest. My impression is you only say so because you're too close to Ole' Red Hat's habits and don't want to leave them. That's funny, since I've never been a part of Ole' Red Hat. I joined RH in February. I've never actually run RHEL, only Fedora. I don't even have an RHCE. People inside RH are forever complaining that I insist on doing everything outside the company. :P The key to implement what I said is a minimial installer image - Actually RH distros once had an installer which was very close to this. Unfortuately, this doesn't apply anymore. Well, I believe the reason it's so big is because it contains stage2, and the reason for that is so it doesn't have to be loaded into RAM, which would make the installer rather more RAM-intensive (things already get dicey with 512MB in certain circumstances). that does sound like an area that could be re-examined, though. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 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 the whole system is broken! so everybody have to spenda few days to get back their config. so we only have to spend a few days every half year. it's even worse then if i install windows. it's a really nice release. why is it so difficult to upgrade packages? I upgraded my laptop from F10 to F11, with X running, via yum. It worked flawlessly and rebooted clean. When I tried, FC-10's yum had been unable to process metalinks. May-be FC-10's yum has been updated since then ;) Oh, I forgot about that. There was a simple change you could do to the yum configuration files. I found it in the documentation for upgrading via yum on the Wiki. Good thing I read documentation, really, isn't it... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 than if we don't work for 100. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 be why we've been rolling updates.img files for the most serious anaconda issues, and documenting them on the Common Issues page. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 reputation to not provide updated media, thus to expose users to known bugs. I can't think of any major distro that actually does this. It's a very big effort that would take much manpower away from working on the installer and releng tasks for the next release. The discussion about whether that compromise would be justified has not been done yet. It's not as simple as you suggest. 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 to release official respins. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 to release official respins. And this is happening. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 FC11 users. That would be why we've been rolling updates.img files for the most serious anaconda issues, and documenting them on the Common Issues page. IMO kernel issues should influence installer image updates, too... Jeff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 to expose users to known bugs. I can't think of any major distro that actually does this. And? Isn't Fedora about innovation? It's a very big effort that would take much manpower away from working on the installer and releng tasks for the next release. The discussion about whether that compromise would be justified has not been done yet. It's not as simple as you suggest. My impression is you only say so because you're too close to Ole' Red Hat's habits and don't want to leave them. The key to implement what I said is a minimial installer image - Actually RH distros once had an installer which was very close to this. Unfortuately, this doesn't apply anymore. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 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. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? If you want a small root partition you should put /var/cache/yum on another partition. Do you mean Preupgrade didn't handle the lack of disk space well? * anaconda failing during reboots due not being able to process fstab correctly (FC11's anaconda misparses fstab and is unable able to process bind-mounts nor nfs-mounts). Bind mounts are fixed, as far as I know: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496406 For NFS mounts, I believe it's fixed in commit 40728ffcc1e32eb6b5ccc0cd3b3ddb23216cf199, which was on June 7th. That should carry over NFS mounts listed in /etc/fstab if you are doing an upgrade. Well, to my knowledge these are FIXED RAWHIDE, only. * anaconda's depsolving failed when upgrading an FC10 + FC10-updates system due to NEVR issues. If you have any details of the failure, it would help. Unfortunately no. I had not been involved into upgrading the system this had happened to from the beginning. I was called to troubleshoot this upgrade. The situation I found was a partially upgraded system, stuck on upgrading yum due to a rpm conflict on yum itself. No idea how the person trying to upgrade managed to get into this situation. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 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. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? Well, to some extend, I am blaming it, because a) filling '/' may easily kill a system and may easily cause further damage (processes running in parallel to preupgrade might be malfunctioning due lack of diskspace). b) I expect an installer to be able to check whether sufficient space is available in advance, rsp. not to leave a system in an unusable state in case of something going wrong. In BZ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503183 I questioned whether using /var/cache/yum is a good choice for preupgrade's package cache. Though I meanwhile know that this BZ is was a side-effect of the nfs-parser bugs in anaconda, I still think using /root or /tmp would be better choices. 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). /root is not supposed to be used by random apps. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
-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 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. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? If you want a small root partition you should put /var/cache/yum on another partition. Do you mean Preupgrade didn't handle the lack of disk space well? * anaconda failing during reboots due not being able to process fstab correctly (FC11's anaconda misparses fstab and is unable able to process bind-mounts nor nfs-mounts). Bind mounts are fixed, as far as I know: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496406 For NFS mounts, I believe it's fixed in commit 40728ffcc1e32eb6b5ccc0cd3b3ddb23216cf199, which was on June 7th. That should carry over NFS mounts listed in /etc/fstab if you are doing an upgrade. Well, to my knowledge these are FIXED RAWHIDE, only. That's true. anaconda is unique in that the only way a new one can be released to fix installation issues for users is to generate new media. If the problem is confined to the second stage of the installer, we can put the fix in to an updates.img. We do this for common bugs when a release comes out, but we cannot spend all of our time constantly releasing updates.img files: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs We continue to fix problems reported against Fedora 11's anaconda in rawhide, but for users needing the fix in the latest stable release, consider Fedora Unity. Fedora Unity generates new spins of the latest stable release including backports of anaconda fixes: http://www.fedoraunity.org/ No guarantees of what Fedora Unity contains, but I know they follow the rawhide anaconda and pick out fixes that work for the latest stable release and generate new installation media. You also get the benefit of having all current stable updates for F-11 rolled up in to the installation media. - -- David Cantrell dcantr...@redhat.com Red Hat / Honolulu, HI -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkptcuEACgkQ5hsjjIy1VklUDwCg3VaxUZcccm4X2io9BffrPWBP NagAnRS0EuOe/RFaynGENwrN/8RD9kI4 =6ACn -END PGP SIGNATURE--- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 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 reason I don't think preupgrade is actually safe to use yet. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? If you want a small root partition you should put /var/cache/yum on another partition. Do you mean Preupgrade didn't handle the lack of disk space well? * anaconda failing during reboots due not being able to process fstab correctly (FC11's anaconda misparses fstab and is unable able to process bind-mounts nor nfs-mounts). Bind mounts are fixed, as far as I know: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496406 For NFS mounts, I believe it's fixed in commit 40728ffcc1e32eb6b5ccc0cd3b3ddb23216cf199, which was on June 7th. That should carry over NFS mounts listed in /etc/fstab if you are doing an upgrade. Well, to my knowledge these are FIXED RAWHIDE, only. That's true. anaconda is unique in that the only way a new one can be released to fix installation issues for users is to generate new media. Exactly = this bug is _not fixed_. We continue to fix problems reported against Fedora 11's anaconda in rawhide, but for users needing the fix in the latest stable release, consider Fedora Unity. Fedora Unity generates new spins of the latest stable release including backports of anaconda fixes: http://www.fedoraunity.org/ 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 to expose users to known bugs. Openly said, I think this management mistake is one of the culprits for the poor shape of Fedora. Another one is not having banned FIXED RAWHIDE/UPSTREAM. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 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. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? Well, to some extend, I am blaming it, because a) filling '/' may easily kill a system and may easily cause further damage (processes running in parallel to preupgrade might be malfunctioning due lack of diskspace). b) I expect an installer to be able to check whether sufficient space is available in advance, rsp. not to leave a system in an unusable state in case of something going wrong. In BZ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503183 I questioned whether using /var/cache/yum is a good choice for preupgrade's package cache. Though I meanwhile know that this BZ is was a side-effect of the nfs-parser bugs in anaconda, I still think using /root or /tmp would be better choices. 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 On my machines, various subdirs of /var are nfs mounted and spread across a network. /root is not supposed to be used by random apps. This is not a random app permanently using a filesystem. It is the user root running an application to set up a personal temporary filesystem to be used exclusively by him. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 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 preupgrade is actually safe to use yet. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? Well, to some extend, I am blaming it, because a) filling '/' may easily kill a system and may easily cause further damage (processes running in parallel to preupgrade might be malfunctioning due lack of diskspace). b) I expect an installer to be able to check whether sufficient space is available in advance, rsp. not to leave a system in an unusable state in case of something going wrong. In BZ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503183 I questioned whether using /var/cache/yum is a good choice for preupgrade's package cache. Though I meanwhile know that this BZ is was a side-effect of the nfs-parser bugs in anaconda, I still think using /root or /tmp would be better choices. 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 What kind of argument is that? Your problem for not using a big enough /var partition ;) I don't care about the stuff in /tmp across reboots, and this has been no issue for now. Well the best way to solve this is default to /var/cache/yum but make it configureable for people that insists on another location. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 debate a release-number super-epoch? I can see some virtue to this - but it'll just make for more game playing. I think we're probably better off pursuing the auto-qa mechanisms we've been planning. Those will enable us to check to make sure that things aren't sideways before we release the bits. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 something that depends on files in /tmp surviving a reboot is definitely broken. There's a reason it's called 'tmp'. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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). Your problem, if you are using a non-reboot persistant /tmp I'd think that something that depends on files in /tmp surviving a reboot is definitely broken. There's a reason it's called 'tmp'. Exactly. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 whenever the system is booted. Filesystem Hierarchy Standard v2.3 Well, I yes I mixed up /tmp with /var/tmp. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
-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 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 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. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? If you want a small root partition you should put /var/cache/yum on another partition. Do you mean Preupgrade didn't handle the lack of disk space well? * anaconda failing during reboots due not being able to process fstab correctly (FC11's anaconda misparses fstab and is unable able to process bind-mounts nor nfs-mounts). Bind mounts are fixed, as far as I know: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496406 For NFS mounts, I believe it's fixed in commit 40728ffcc1e32eb6b5ccc0cd3b3ddb23216cf199, which was on June 7th. That should carry over NFS mounts listed in /etc/fstab if you are doing an upgrade. Well, to my knowledge these are FIXED RAWHIDE, only. That's true. anaconda is unique in that the only way a new one can be released to fix installation issues for users is to generate new media. Exactly = this bug is _not fixed_. We continue to fix problems reported against Fedora 11's anaconda in rawhide, but for users needing the fix in the latest stable release, consider Fedora Unity. Fedora Unity generates new spins of the latest stable release including backports of anaconda fixes: http://www.fedoraunity.org/ 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 to expose users to known bugs. Openly said, I think this management mistake is one of the culprits for the poor shape of Fedora. Another one is not having banned FIXED RAWHIDE/UPSTREAM. The problem here is when do you stop generating new media to fix bugs in F-11's installer and start working on F-12? Never? A week after F-11 GA? What determines if an installer bug gets a fix in F-11 vs. not? It's a gigantic waste of time for the installer team to release updates to F-11's installer. We can address those bugs in rawhide and have them fixed in the next stable release. Generating new media for an existing release is not a great solution. The mirrors are already synced up with the GA release. Here's what we do and I think it works best for now given the incredibly short (and damn near impossible to work with) planning and development windows for Fedora releases: 1) Major installation problems are documented on the Common Bugs wiki page for the Fedora release in question. Either a workaround or updates.img file is provided to fix the issue. 2) New bugs come in and we address them in rawhide. Where we run in to issues here is asking people to test the next build of rawhide. Not everyone wants to do that (or can, has time, etc). But spending our time producing new media and/or updates.img files for F-11 takes away from our time to work on F-12. This is where I think Fedora Unity can bridge the gap. They can pick up fixes for F-11 installation problems and roll new media for users. That provides a non-rawhide solution for the reporter, lets the bug at least get some testing, and frees us [installer team] from having to produce media or updates.img files for F-11. A larger problem we have is that we don't get the wide testing on the Alpha, Beta, or Release Candidate releases of the upcoming Fedora release. The same group of people generally test things out and the QA team performs their tests, but we never get the same testing exposure that a GA release does. Most users are sitting around waiting for the GA release and when they find a bug, it's too late for us to do anything about it in that release. Maybe if we lengthened the development cycle for a Fedora release and renamed Alpha, Beta, and RC to .0, .1, and .2, users would think differently of each release. - -- David Cantrell dcantr...@redhat.com
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 happens all the time on lots of systems. I've had it happen on debian upgrades, slackware upgrades (granted that was long ago) and many fedora and rhel upgrades. 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. just to be correct neither fc6-fc7 nor rhel4-rhel5 break any system tools! and i don't remember to fc1-fc2. -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 (iirc) nor likely to work consistently in my experience b/c of how much things changed between them. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 of fun metadata breaks rhel4-rhel5 upgrades are neither supported (iirc) nor likely to work consistently in my experience b/c of how much things changed between them. A live in place RHEL upgrade via something like 'yum' may not be supported, but I believe that an Anaconda based upgrade is fully supported. Though 'supported' might include you having to redo customizations to config files the like. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 remember to fc1-fc2. fc6-fc7 had a couple of fun metadata breaks rhel4-rhel5 upgrades are neither supported (iirc) nor likely to work consistently in my experience b/c of how much things changed between them. A live in place RHEL upgrade via something like 'yum' may not be supported, but I believe that an Anaconda based upgrade is fully supported. Though 'supported' might include you having to redo customizations to config files the like. agreed and most importantly - all discussions of what is or is not possible for rhel is offsubject. My bad for even mentioning it. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 started working after I deleted ~/.pulse. and if you is broken then the whole system is broken! so everybody have to spenda few days to get back their config. so we only have to spend a few days every half year. it's even worse then if i install windows. it's a really nice release. why is it so difficult to upgrade packages? I upgraded my laptop from F10 to F11, with X running, via yum. It worked flawlessly and rebooted clean. Anecdotal evidence means very little. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 configuration back into shape. Sound started working after I deleted ~/.pulse. and if you is broken then the whole system is broken! so everybody have to spenda few days to get back their config. so we only have to spend a few days every half year. it's even worse then if i install windows. it's a really nice release. why is it so difficult to upgrade packages? I upgraded my laptop from F10 to F11, with X running, via yum. It worked flawlessly and rebooted clean. When I tried, FC-10's yum had been unable to process metalinks. May-be FC-10's yum has been updated since then ;) Anecdotal evidence means very little. It may be news to you, but a single negative result invalidates a whole series of positive tests ;) My personal list of upgrade FC-10-FC-11 failures is rather lengthyg, however most of the issues I encountered were related to preupdate, anaconda and rel-eng mistakes. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 configuration back into shape. Sound started working after I deleted ~/.pulse. and if you is broken then the whole system is broken! so everybody have to spenda few days to get back their config. so we only have to spend a few days every half year. it's even worse then if i install windows. it's a really nice release. why is it so difficult to upgrade packages? I upgraded my laptop from F10 to F11, with X running, via yum. It worked flawlessly and rebooted clean. if it's the preferred method then it's better to forget the install dvd upgrade method. and even forget about fedora release! Anecdotal evidence means very little. what do you refer to? -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 broken in general. Well, it means that the feature lacks generality and raises questions about a feature's readyness for prime time - Judging whether this feature is sufficiently ready for prime-time is up to the eye of beholder. Adam thinks it's good, I observed breakdowns on several different systems (5 so far). My conclusion: The FC10 preupdate/FC11 anaconda combo are far from being ready, even less so the version in the iso. 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. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 /boot partitions so that I can keep Fedora n as a fallback until I see that Fedora n+1 (or sometimes n+2) is working acceptably. I have a separate /home partition so I can keep it when I reinstall or upgrade, but I've found that logging in to Fedora n after having run Fedora n+1 with the same /home can be dangerous. I completely trashed my Kmail configuration that way. Since then I'm more careful and test Fedora n+1 before I move the /home partition over. Björn Persson signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 Fedora n+1 and homedisk which has /home/users Fedora n:/home/user/ and Fedora n+1:/home/user/ have symbolic links to the /homedisk/user/* This allows me to have an alomst trouble-less installs version after version, starting from Fedora-8 -- Work while you are alive, you can rest later -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. However, once the pkgs are downloaded and the system reboots it is all in Anaconda's hands. The case of yum being 'partially' upgraded came from us having a newer yum in f10+updates than was in F11. This was documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs#Yum_doesn.27t_work_after_upgrading_from_F10 and the fix provided for it works to get you to update properly. now, since farkas just mentioned that he didn't actually run preupgrade when things went badly then it suggests to me that preupgrade is probably not to blame. Alan, if you can describe the situation where preupgrade munged up a system, I'd like to take a look. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 deleted ~/.pulse. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs#Yum_doesn.27t_work_after_upgrading_from_F10 It's a pretty easy work around and it lasts all of however long it will take to get the update downloaded. 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? 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? if it's so broken or it's require so broken thing like python then it should have to be replaced with something better tool. ok i know fedora is not intended for any serious task but can you images such a situation on a remote installed system. it's something like a toy now and not a real operation system. -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 twice and there was pressure to upgrade F10's yum to fix some bugs. So the timing worked out that F10+updates had a newer yum than F11. It happens. We provided an easy workaround and documented it. 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 had it happen on debian upgrades, slackware upgrades (granted that was long ago) and many fedora and rhel upgrades. if it's so broken or it's require so broken thing like python then it should have to be replaced with something better tool. I think you're being a bit melodramatic. ok i know fedora is not intended for any serious task but can you images such a situation on a remote installed system. it's something like a toy now and not a real operation system. I disagree. And, frankly, if you're using fedora for such important tasks, you should have tested, first. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 f10-updates, on purpose. We slipped F11 twice and there was pressure to upgrade F10's yum to fix some bugs. So the timing worked out that F10+updates had a newer yum than F11. It happens. We provided an easy workaround and documented it. 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 had it happen on debian upgrades, slackware upgrades (granted that was long ago) and many fedora and rhel upgrades. can you tell me even one such distro+release when this happened? it's never happened with any of the redhat, fedora, rhel releases. -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 had it happen on debian upgrades, slackware upgrades (granted that was long ago) and many fedora and rhel upgrades. 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. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 preupgrade is actually safe to use yet. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) * anaconda failing during reboots due not being able to process fstab correctly (FC11's anaconda misparses fstab and is unable able to process bind-mounts nor nfs-mounts). * anaconda's depsolving failed when upgrading an FC10 + FC10-updates system due to NEVR issues. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 reason I don't think preupgrade is actually safe to use yet. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? If you want a small root partition you should put /var/cache/yum on another partition. Do you mean Preupgrade didn't handle the lack of disk space well? * anaconda failing during reboots due not being able to process fstab correctly (FC11's anaconda misparses fstab and is unable able to process bind-mounts nor nfs-mounts). * anaconda's depsolving failed when upgrading an FC10 + FC10-updates system due to NEVR issues. Those would be Anaconda issues, not Preupgrade issues – which makes them all the more serious. Björn Persson signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main reason I don't think preupgrade is actually safe to use yet. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) * anaconda failing during reboots due not being able to process fstab correctly (FC11's anaconda misparses fstab and is unable able to process bind-mounts nor nfs-mounts). * anaconda's depsolving failed when upgrading an FC10 + FC10-updates system due to NEVR issues. Are there bug numbers for these issues? John -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 -- Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Cell: 603.252.2606 Twitter, etc.: bill_mcgonigle Page: 603.442.1833 Email, IM, VOIP: b...@bfccomputing.com Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 Redhat 9 and has been yum upgraded. FC1-FC2 was the only tricky one. The YumUpgradeFAQ is indispensable and sometimes there are conflicts that need resolving (which, I assume, is why anaconda fails to depsolve). But all-in-all it takes far less time to upgrade than re-install for non-trivial configurations. We suggest filing bugs against packages that fail to upgrade, but I believe I've seen those closed with we don't support upgrades. ...yet, I say - it's inevitable. I really wish there were a way to segregate /etc into system configs and application configs so that it was easier to do re-installs. -Bill -- Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Cell: 603.252.2606 Twitter, etc.: bill_mcgonigle Page: 603.442.1833 Email, IM, VOIP: b...@bfccomputing.com Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 half upgrading like that. It's the main reason I don't think preupgrade is actually safe to use yet. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? Well, to some extend, I am blaming it, because a) filling '/' may easily kill a system and may easily cause further damage (processes running in parallel to preupgrade might be malfunctioning due lack of diskspace). b) I expect an installer to be able to check whether sufficient space is available in advance, rsp. not to leave a system in an unusable state in case of something going wrong. In BZ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503183 I questioned whether using /var/cache/yum is a good choice for preupgrade's package cache. Though I meanwhile know that this BZ is was a side-effect of the nfs-parser bugs in anaconda, I still think using /root or /tmp would be better choices. If you want a small root partition you should put /var/cache/yum on another partition. This would have worked, if anaconda had been able to process fstab. Unfortunately, FC11's anaconda isn't able to do so. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503183 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508932 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506396 (Note: These all are FIXED RAWHIDE/UPSTREAM, i.e. not fixed in FC11!) Also related to these: * Responsible for being forced to use preupgrade: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498720 * Causing troubles in the aftermath of upgrades/updates: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511076 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511101 Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
-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 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. Preupgrade's process is to depsolve - using the same method anaconda does, download the pkgs it solves out. Put them in a cachedir. Download a kernel and an initrd, Setup a ks.cfg. then reboot the machine and allow anaconda to do the install. Specific issues we've had with preupgrade are related to not being able to find a mirror and/or not being able to get pkgs. Mine were * preupgrade running out of diskspace on / when trying to fill /var/cache/yum (my /'s tend to be minimized/small) You're not blaming Preupgrade for the partition being too small, are you? If you want a small root partition you should put /var/cache/yum on another partition. Do you mean Preupgrade didn't handle the lack of disk space well? * anaconda failing during reboots due not being able to process fstab correctly (FC11's anaconda misparses fstab and is unable able to process bind-mounts nor nfs-mounts). Bind mounts are fixed, as far as I know: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496406 For NFS mounts, I believe it's fixed in commit 40728ffcc1e32eb6b5ccc0cd3b3ddb23216cf199, which was on June 7th. That should carry over NFS mounts listed in /etc/fstab if you are doing an upgrade. * anaconda's depsolving failed when upgrading an FC10 + FC10-updates system due to NEVR issues. If you have any details of the failure, it would help. Anaconda relies on yum to do depsolving and yum relies on correctly configured yum repositories to provide the information to do depsolving. If you have details, please file a bug for anaconda. Those would be Anaconda issues, not Preupgrade issues – which makes them all the more serious. - -- David Cantrell dcantr...@redhat.com Red Hat / Honolulu, HI -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkptPBYACgkQ5hsjjIy1VkkFlACeNHFf5Tx8Ief3O1qjFgSrYPEm GBkAnj4Guybso65om2SV88cQb+vU2JiC =uTAM -END PGP SIGNATURE--- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 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 kernel option. on system where anaconda do not crash f10 update's yum newer then on f11 iso's so the installer do not upgrade yum! so after the upgrade yum no longer works. as the installer do not upgrade kernel-devel akmods not able to rebuild kernel module for nvidia and ati so X not able to start. in order to be able to get the latest kernel-devel and akmods packages i need network. but as i don't have X i can't use these fantastic networkmanager tool and the old ifup wlan0 no longer works. but without networkmanager wifi is not working so my laptop is no longer usable! no X ati do not working, no wireless. all of my system has a wrong openssl version so eg ntp never start. after i manually get (with a pendrive) yum packages yum able to work but crash and ask me to send this bug to the developer (but still without network). there was some python 2.5 abi problem. how can a system critical tool like yum depend on such a broken thing like python? currently there is no way in installer to use rpm it use yum:-( after i update by hand a few dozen of packages with rpm yum start to work. now the worst part after i already install f11 yum show 2069 packages to update!!! just one month after the release! my system consist of 2059 packages at the same time yum download 2069 packages to update! what the hell i doing??? why do i upgrade the system for a half days if i upgrade all of my packages. why do i need a dvd iso? this download is more then the whole iso! and the real annoying part after i upgrade a few thousands of packages is the sound no longer works! there is no volume control i can't play even a wav file with play ...wav. is it so difficult thing? in 2009 it's a big requirement that an operating system be able to play a wav file? anyway nothing is working no sound at all skype is no longer works. tv tunner card no longer works. why anybody try to push this pulse stuff!? it's known to broken no one like it it's very early in development. after each fedora release a real big part of the mailing list traffic is about pulseaudio. let's just exclude it out and try to use it after 2012. are you really wanna suck so much with it? and the firefox and thunderbird betas... why? do we really need to be so cutting edge? they are broken and crash too often:-( thunderbird has no google calendar provider (while it had in f10) so it's worse then in f10. there is a testing thunderbird-lightening which has no corresponding thunderbird release (f11 was released on 9th juli:-) on a simple on borad intel video card X/gnome crash daily. and i could be list many other problems. so i really thing that's the worst then ever release of fedora. and tend to agree with dag that fedora is not suitable even for the desktop/workstation world. and i can't say anything those ubuntu users who said it's working in ububtu:-( if rhel 6 will be released i'll push a new company policy that no one can use fedora (it's so much problem for the users and the support that it's not worth for it) even as a desktop os just centos 6. a really angry fedora user. -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 kernel option. 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 either ! 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. 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. i already install f11 yum show 2069 packages to update!!! just one month after the release! my system consist of 2059 In other words your box didn't update to F11 in the first place, it just updated a few things and exploded, which is what it tends to do. You were basically running FC10 and a few random bits of FC11. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 either ! I always set up my md /boot manually and it works fine after that. 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. 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 always do a fresh install, formatting the partition from the older install. This has the advantage of providing a backup in case the new Fedora doesn't work so well. Eventually, when updates to the new Fedora fix the most annoying bugs, I switch to using it full time. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 is actually safe to use yet. i use fedora install dvd in this case! if it's do a half upgrade then it's also the bug of the installer. i already install f11 yum show 2069 packages to update!!! just one month after the release! my system consist of 2059 In other words your box didn't update to F11 in the first place, it just updated a few things and exploded, which is what it tends to do. You were basically running FC10 and a few random bits of FC11. as i wrote i use fedora install dvd! if it's jusr updated a few things then it's also the bug of the installer. -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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. 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 always do a fresh install, formatting the partition from the older install. This has the advantage of providing a backup in case the new Fedora doesn't work so well. Eventually, when updates to the new Fedora fix the most annoying bugs, I switch to using it full time. and it's a shame! it's not windows when we need to reinstall and reboot with every install. or if it's know to be broken then remove the option to upgrade. -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
-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 by half upgrading like that. It's the main reason I don't think preupgrade is actually safe to use yet. i use fedora install dvd in this case! if it's do a half upgrade then it's also the bug of the installer. i already install f11 yum show 2069 packages to update!!! just one month after the release! my system consist of 2059 In other words your box didn't update to F11 in the first place, it just updated a few things and exploded, which is what it tends to do. You were basically running FC10 and a few random bits of FC11. as i wrote i use fedora install dvd! if it's jusr updated a few things then it's also the bug of the installer. This is a problem with the DVD that is hard to solve. Fully updated F10 is newer than F11 was when the DVD was spun (especially when the DVD is a month old)...so not everything got updated. There was a thread on it earlier on this list. It either breaks other things to fix or the DVD is just broken to update from after X days of release. - --Ben -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkprMWcACgkQiPi+MRHG3qSo9wCeKF/Z1J/22CmNcwhmTXeJbsGO uMoAnAo/31bw/t5ptZspMBJeWT8QKyO4 =1TBQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 new releases, and redirect Fedora to where your home folder is in fstab. However, I unfortunately have to say that since Fedora 9, user experience has been decreasing for me. Installing Fedora was a nightmare since trying to do anything other than replace the existing Linux Partition caused anaconda to crash, connecting to computers across my internal home network is precarious, and multimedia support is the worst I've ever seen it. I'd rather see nothing but a significant increase in reliability in F12 than to see any new features at all. On 07/25/2009 11:30 AM, Farkas Levente wrote: 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 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 kernel option. on system where anaconda do not crash f10 update's yum newer then on f11 iso's so the installer do not upgrade yum! so after the upgrade yum no longer works. as the installer do not upgrade kernel-devel akmods not able to rebuild kernel module for nvidia and ati so X not able to start. in order to be able to get the latest kernel-devel and akmods packages i need network. but as i don't have X i can't use these fantastic networkmanager tool and the old ifup wlan0 no longer works. but without networkmanager wifi is not working so my laptop is no longer usable! no X ati do not working, no wireless. all of my system has a wrong openssl version so eg ntp never start. after i manually get (with a pendrive) yum packages yum able to work but crash and ask me to send this bug to the developer (but still without network). there was some python 2.5 abi problem. how can a system critical tool like yum depend on such a broken thing like python? currently there is no way in installer to use rpm it use yum:-( after i update by hand a few dozen of packages with rpm yum start to work. now the worst part after i already install f11 yum show 2069 packages to update!!! just one month after the release! my system consist of 2059 packages at the same time yum download 2069 packages to update! what the hell i doing??? why do i upgrade the system for a half days if i upgrade all of my packages. why do i need a dvd iso? this download is more then the whole iso! and the real annoying part after i upgrade a few thousands of packages is the sound no longer works! there is no volume control i can't play even a wav file with play ...wav. is it so difficult thing? in 2009 it's a big requirement that an operating system be able to play a wav file? anyway nothing is working no sound at all skype is no longer works. tv tunner card no longer works. why anybody try to push this pulse stuff!? it's known to broken no one like it it's very early in development. after each fedora release a real big part of the mailing list traffic is about pulseaudio. let's just exclude it out and try to use it after 2012. are you really wanna suck so much with it? and the firefox and thunderbird betas... why? do we really need to be so cutting edge? they are broken and crash too often:-( thunderbird has no google calendar provider (while it had in f10) so it's worse then in f10. there is a testing thunderbird-lightening which has no corresponding thunderbird release (f11 was released on 9th juli:-) on a simple on borad intel video card X/gnome crash daily. and i could be list many other problems. so i really thing that's the worst then ever release of fedora. and tend to agree with dag that fedora is not suitable even for the desktop/workstation world. and i can't say anything those ubuntu users who said it's working in ububtu:-( if rhel 6 will be released i'll push a new company policy that no one can use fedora (it's so much problem for the users and the support that it's not worth for it) even as a desktop os just centos 6. a really angry fedora user. -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 broken compiler. (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507247) Luckily I've finally found the error, so I can at least build fixed compiler packages for myself until Fedora 12 is released with GCC 4.4.1 where the bug is fixed. Or maybe some GCC maintainer will even find it worth their time to apply my patch. Björn Persson signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 is...who in the community is standing up and taking the responsibility as the front line testers of preupgrade during the pre-release process? I admit I don't test or make us of it (and thus I don't feel I'm qualified to comment on how well it functions nor do I tell people to use it because I do not use it myself)...as I prefer fresh installs so that I can experience the default configuration which can change significantly from release to release. Do we need some affirmative me-too tabulation on the install scenarios to get an idea of how much testing each method is getting? If preupgrade is seeing only 1% of the DVD installer testing would it help to publicly expose that as encouragement for more people to test preupgrade? -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 actually safe to use yet. My first thought is...who in the community is standing up and taking the responsibility as the front line testers of preupgrade during the pre-release process? I did test it. It worked well for the most part. I filed bug reports and RFE's for the rest. They are in bugzilla. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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, then replace the operating system for new releases, and redirect Fedora to where your home folder is in fstab. 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. all i describe happened after a dvd upgrade on one of my f10 system. -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 the whole system is broken! so everybody have to spenda few days to get back their config. so we only have to spend a few days every half year. it's even worse then if i install windows. it's a really nice release. why is it so difficult to upgrade packages? -- Levente Si vis pacem para bellum! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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. The only way to avoid Anaconda is to upgrade by Yum. Björn Persson signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 your problem is that anaconda for some reasons crash on your system, but with the infos you provided we can only speculate what happened. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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 work for me. But I dont complain, kind of got used to the idea that fedora is not made for upgrades. However, fresh install every time takes too much time for deploying all the old tweaked configs and stuff... so I switch between versions just once a year, from f N to f n+2, keeping two consequent version of fedora on two different machines. -- regards, Oleksandr Korneta I'm running F9 x86_64 and F10 i386 on x86_64 hardware, should this matter. /The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from./ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: fedora 11 worst then ever release
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, N+1 and N+2. interesting idea. Do you keep the same home for both? Interestingly, home directories are more stable across the Fedora releases than anything else. With the above update scheme, I kept the same home directories for a few Fedora releases in a row (since ~FC5). Once I had to rename the ~/.kde directory during the KDE3-KDE4 transition but that's all. Orcan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
