Re: [off-topic] CS/IT/SE/CE/IS and analogies to other sciences (was: Re: 7.2 update instructions)
Thanks Lamar. William. On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:51 PM, Lamar Owenwrote: On 02/23/2016 03:29 AM, Yasha Karant wrote: > Apologies, but I do not understand the "+1"; is this approval to post > additional commentary on this matter, or, again, is this discussion > not suitable for this list? I did not initiate the matter of the ACM > view or curricular recommendations, in contrast to that of an > information technology approach; but there seem to be fundamental > misconceptions concerning the fields of computer science and > engineering in the commentary, just as I have met some "applied" > physicists who have misconceptions about fundamental physics... Once again, the primary purpose of my bringing up the ACM curricula was simply to use an academically accepted source of definitions to establish common terminology, and to relate that even though many on this list are in various theoretical sciences they are not necessarily 'computer scientists' by the ACM's definition of same. Many are in scientific institutions (such as my own) who deal with computers used by various theoretical/basic research scientists, but who are themselves 'information technologists,' again by the ACM's definition of same. I am not an astrophysicist; nor am I any one of the various subcategories of astronomer (astronomy embodies astrometry, photometry, spectroscopy, cosmology, and many other subfields); but I do support research astronomers as my $day_job (to use an IT-ism). I do have an engineering degree, incidentally, but that is not my main job for the most part. My observation was that you are not likely to get a 'computer scientist' mindset in answers to systems administration questions (squarely in the 'information technologist' realm), but you are very likely to get an 'information technologist' answer instead. The details of the differences are easily found in the ACM's own curricula standards; for the list, those may be found at http://www.acm.org/education/curricula-recommendations It boils down to a difference in terminology. A good example is the '+1' used to signify 'I agree with that' that you found alien, but those who have been in IT for a long time understood as a part of the tacit knowledge in the IT discipline. The use of '+1' on mailing lists and Usenet prior to that is pretty common. Degree of agreement is expressed by a larger number; +1000 would be 'vehemently agree,' for instance. I would personally be interested in your commentary, and I already know that there are others who would be as well, but it is probably not appropriate for the list. So, please send me (and whomever may request it directly from you) and if it is ok with you I'll forward along to those who have contacted me privately with an interest in reading that commentary as well. > > For Lamar, who evidently has looked at my not-recently-updated > academic home page, the item you mention is posted there from another > source (I do not have any graphics artists to support my work, and do > not have the spare time to do the stick figure material you see) that > I thought was credited. Yes, I saw the actual author (after following a link in the text of the document to grab the example source code) after I made the post, and I apologize for the improper attribution. Hope you have a great day.
Re: 7.2 update instructions
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I simply meant the following:* I will appreciate a copy of your response on the differences between computer science, technology, etc, be it off-list or on-list (if moderators approve).* I'll appreciate Lamar's too, and the outcome from his University (if available). Just to provide context, I'm from computer science (CSC); I encounter very strange views of CSC, IT, ICT, etc. (e.g., CSC is of Engineering and has no place in general [secondary] education or that IT skills are sufficient for CSC); and typically feel I and the other party(ies) are from different planets. William. On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 9:29 AM, Yasha Karantwrote: Apologies, but I do not understand the "+1"; is this approval to post additional commentary on this matter, or, again, is this discussion not suitable for this list? I did not initiate the matter of the ACM view or curricular recommendations, in contrast to that of an information technology approach; but there seem to be fundamental misconceptions concerning the fields of computer science and engineering in the commentary, just as I have met some "applied" physicists who have misconceptions about fundamental physics (e.g., high energy physics and general relativity). (I mention fundamental physics because that is the basic reason for the existence of both Fermilab and CERN -- at both institutions, EL is the operating environment to enable the research, rather than DEC VMS of a previous epoch. Those in the EL community gain from this use.) For Lamar, who evidently has looked at my not-recently-updated academic home page, the item you mention is posted there from another source (I do not have any graphics artists to support my work, and do not have the spare time to do the stick figure material you see) that I thought was credited. I use this introduction to AES (and cryptography in general), along with a Conan Doyle short story, as my part of the "dog and pony show" my department does on an annual basis to recruit high school students to come to our ABET accredited programs as undergraduate majors. If a person cannot handle mathematics, including that behind encryption, then, regrettably, computer science and engineering probably is not a good fit (nor would physics be). When I teach a course involving encryption, I cover it with greater depth than what you see in the cartoon -- but I still have the students read the cartoon to get some background before I teach the mathematics and then the cryptography. On 02/22/2016 11:29 AM, William Shu wrote: Yasha/Lamar + 1 for your views on these comparisons, and Lamar's university's conclusions (and justifications thereto) when done, on or off list. William. On Monday, February 22, 2016 6:54 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: On 02/22/2016 11:50 AM, Yasha Karant wrote: > would it be appropriate for me to post a response? The differences > are deep and fundamental. > I can't answer that; a moderator would need to. I would personally welcome a direct e-mail with the explanation myself, as my .edu is currently investigating 'CS' curricula (where 'CS' is the Google/Microsoft version and not the ACM version of 'CS'). And for the list, one of the more fascinating things you are likely to ever read is Yasha Karant's 'A Stick Figure Guide to the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)' which is available at http://www.csci.csusb.edu/ykarant/cryptography/aes-cartoon.pdf ; I certainly found it interesting. My paragraph was simply there to let you know that there are probably many more IT folk here than CS folk, and IT folk tend to have a very hands-on and practical 'here's the standard way to do it' answer and an eye towards maintainability, and all of that is just a part of the IT mindset. Neither is the more correct mindset; the mindsets are just different. A CIS-mindset is yet even more different, but that's not nearly as well represented here, nor are the CE or SE mindsets, but the IT mindset is very much predominant here. As well, it was to serve to let the list as a whole know that there are different mindsets out there that are very different from the typical sysadmin IT-centric mindset.
[off-topic] CS/IT/SE/CE/IS and analogies to other sciences (was: Re: 7.2 update instructions)
On 02/23/2016 03:29 AM, Yasha Karant wrote: Apologies, but I do not understand the "+1"; is this approval to post additional commentary on this matter, or, again, is this discussion not suitable for this list? I did not initiate the matter of the ACM view or curricular recommendations, in contrast to that of an information technology approach; but there seem to be fundamental misconceptions concerning the fields of computer science and engineering in the commentary, just as I have met some "applied" physicists who have misconceptions about fundamental physics... Once again, the primary purpose of my bringing up the ACM curricula was simply to use an academically accepted source of definitions to establish common terminology, and to relate that even though many on this list are in various theoretical sciences they are not necessarily 'computer scientists' by the ACM's definition of same. Many are in scientific institutions (such as my own) who deal with computers used by various theoretical/basic research scientists, but who are themselves 'information technologists,' again by the ACM's definition of same. I am not an astrophysicist; nor am I any one of the various subcategories of astronomer (astronomy embodies astrometry, photometry, spectroscopy, cosmology, and many other subfields); but I do support research astronomers as my $day_job (to use an IT-ism). I do have an engineering degree, incidentally, but that is not my main job for the most part. My observation was that you are not likely to get a 'computer scientist' mindset in answers to systems administration questions (squarely in the 'information technologist' realm), but you are very likely to get an 'information technologist' answer instead. The details of the differences are easily found in the ACM's own curricula standards; for the list, those may be found at http://www.acm.org/education/curricula-recommendations It boils down to a difference in terminology. A good example is the '+1' used to signify 'I agree with that' that you found alien, but those who have been in IT for a long time understood as a part of the tacit knowledge in the IT discipline. The use of '+1' on mailing lists and Usenet prior to that is pretty common. Degree of agreement is expressed by a larger number; +1000 would be 'vehemently agree,' for instance. I would personally be interested in your commentary, and I already know that there are others who would be as well, but it is probably not appropriate for the list. So, please send me (and whomever may request it directly from you) and if it is ok with you I'll forward along to those who have contacted me privately with an interest in reading that commentary as well. For Lamar, who evidently has looked at my not-recently-updated academic home page, the item you mention is posted there from another source (I do not have any graphics artists to support my work, and do not have the spare time to do the stick figure material you see) that I thought was credited. Yes, I saw the actual author (after following a link in the text of the document to grab the example source code) after I made the post, and I apologize for the improper attribution. Hope you have a great day.
Re: 7.2 update instructions
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Lamar Owenwrote: > I actually use an rsync mirror (the copy is done with rsync -avHAX, although > symlinks can be disturbed if not careful) to another disk; an rsync backup > is restored quite simply, and using hardlinking can trim quite a bit of > space used as well as giving you snapshotting. Backuppc I think uses a > similar methodology, but it is overkill for my purposes. For folks using this sort of backup, Do take a look at the "rsnapshot" software at rsnapshot.org. It's reasonably well structured and can save a lot of work trying to organize a set of efficiently hardlinked backups..
Re: 7.2 update instructions
Apologies, but I do not understand the "+1"; is this approval to post additional commentary on this matter, or, again, is this discussion not suitable for this list? I did not initiate the matter of the ACM view or curricular recommendations, in contrast to that of an information technology approach; but there seem to be fundamental misconceptions concerning the fields of computer science and engineering in the commentary, just as I have met some "applied" physicists who have misconceptions about fundamental physics (e.g., high energy physics and general relativity). (I mention fundamental physics because that is the basic reason for the existence of both Fermilab and CERN -- at both institutions, EL is the operating environment to enable the research, rather than DEC VMS of a previous epoch. Those in the EL community gain from this use.) For Lamar, who evidently has looked at my not-recently-updated academic home page, the item you mention is posted there from another source (I do not have any graphics artists to support my work, and do not have the spare time to do the stick figure material you see) that I thought was credited. I use this introduction to AES (and cryptography in general), along with a Conan Doyle short story, as my part of the "dog and pony show" my department does on an annual basis to recruit high school students to come to our ABET accredited programs as undergraduate majors. If a person cannot handle mathematics, including that behind encryption, then, regrettably, computer science and engineering probably is not a good fit (nor would physics be). When I teach a course involving encryption, I cover it with greater depth than what you see in the cartoon -- but I still have the students read the cartoon to get some background before I teach the mathematics and then the cryptography. On 02/22/2016 11:29 AM, William Shu wrote: Yasha/Lamar + 1 for your views on these comparisons, and Lamar's university's conclusions (and justifications thereto) when done, on or off list. William. On Monday, February 22, 2016 6:54 PM, Lamar Owenwrote: On 02/22/2016 11:50 AM, Yasha Karant wrote: > would it be appropriate for me to post a response? The differences > are deep and fundamental. > I can't answer that; a moderator would need to. I would personally welcome a direct e-mail with the explanation myself, as my .edu is currently investigating 'CS' curricula (where 'CS' is the Google/Microsoft version and not the ACM version of 'CS'). And for the list, one of the more fascinating things you are likely to ever read is Yasha Karant's 'A Stick Figure Guide to the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)' which is available at http://www.csci.csusb.edu/ykarant/cryptography/aes-cartoon.pdf ; I certainly found it interesting. My paragraph was simply there to let you know that there are probably many more IT folk here than CS folk, and IT folk tend to have a very hands-on and practical 'here's the standard way to do it' answer and an eye towards maintainability, and all of that is just a part of the IT mindset. Neither is the more correct mindset; the mindsets are just different. A CIS-mindset is yet even more different, but that's not nearly as well represented here, nor are the CE or SE mindsets, but the IT mindset is very much predominant here. As well, it was to serve to let the list as a whole know that there are different mindsets out there that are very different from the typical sysadmin IT-centric mindset.
Re: 7.2 update instructions
Yasha/Lamar + 1 for your views on these comparisons, and Lamar's university's conclusions (and justifications thereto) when done, on or off list. William. On Monday, February 22, 2016 6:54 PM, Lamar Owenwrote: On 02/22/2016 11:50 AM, Yasha Karant wrote: > would it be appropriate for me to post a response? The differences > are deep and fundamental. > I can't answer that; a moderator would need to. I would personally welcome a direct e-mail with the explanation myself, as my .edu is currently investigating 'CS' curricula (where 'CS' is the Google/Microsoft version and not the ACM version of 'CS'). And for the list, one of the more fascinating things you are likely to ever read is Yasha Karant's 'A Stick Figure Guide to the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)' which is available at http://www.csci.csusb.edu/ykarant/cryptography/aes-cartoon.pdf ; I certainly found it interesting. My paragraph was simply there to let you know that there are probably many more IT folk here than CS folk, and IT folk tend to have a very hands-on and practical 'here's the standard way to do it' answer and an eye towards maintainability, and all of that is just a part of the IT mindset. Neither is the more correct mindset; the mindsets are just different. A CIS-mindset is yet even more different, but that's not nearly as well represented here, nor are the CE or SE mindsets, but the IT mindset is very much predominant here. As well, it was to serve to let the list as a whole know that there are different mindsets out there that are very different from the typical sysadmin IT-centric mindset.
Re: 7.2 update instructions
On 02/22/2016 11:50 AM, Yasha Karant wrote: Actually, it has a great deal to do with the original post; however, your exposition of a workable methodology is reasonably clear and will be the mechanism for going forward and I thank you for your clarity. You're welcome. My methods were developed through long experience and much trial and error. Very scientific: hypothesize, experiment, verify or nullify. Lather, rinse, repeat. Presumably, to move existing to-save partitions from the older file system structure to the more current structure is not possible with an "imaging" method, such as dd, but will work with a full backup of an existing high level file system mounted upon a "physical" partition" (e. g., using tar perhaps with lossless compression) and then restore. I actually use an rsync mirror (the copy is done with rsync -avHAX, although symlinks can be disturbed if not careful) to another disk; an rsync backup is restored quite simply, and using hardlinking can trim quite a bit of space used as well as giving you snapshotting. Backuppc I think uses a similar methodology, but it is overkill for my purposes. Filesystem backup/restore tools such as dump and restore or using tarfiles are doable, but in my case the tarball would be too large to be manageable. But using tar with stdout and stdin over an ssh pipe is very efficient. The first book in the 'Linux Server Hacks' series has a lot of this and is a good 'cookbook' for these types of things and doing them the 'standard' way. The second point you raise -- the difference between computer science and engineering versus information technology -- requires a response and clarification, as you posted your views to a public list (anyone may view/read). While this is off-topic for the list as a whole, it might serve as some clarification to many on the list who are very deep in the IT mindset and for whom the CS mindset seems alien. However, as your comment is off the mission of this list (as I have discovered, engineering design issues are not for this list, but rather mostly technology), More to the point: since SL is a rebuild of an already engineered system, the engineering being done isn't being done on this list. We're just putting together already engineered pieces in a creative way; there is plenty of creativity, but it's just a different sort of creativity. would it be appropriate for me to post a response? The differences are deep and fundamental. I can't answer that; a moderator would need to. I would personally welcome a direct e-mail with the explanation myself, as my .edu is currently investigating 'CS' curricula (where 'CS' is the Google/Microsoft version and not the ACM version of 'CS'). And for the list, one of the more fascinating things you are likely to ever read is Yasha Karant's 'A Stick Figure Guide to the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)' which is available at http://www.csci.csusb.edu/ykarant/cryptography/aes-cartoon.pdf ; I certainly found it interesting. My paragraph was simply there to let you know that there are probably many more IT folk here than CS folk, and IT folk tend to have a very hands-on and practical 'here's the standard way to do it' answer and an eye towards maintainability, and all of that is just a part of the IT mindset. Neither is the more correct mindset; the mindsets are just different. A CIS-mindset is yet even more different, but that's not nearly as well represented here, nor are the CE or SE mindsets, but the IT mindset is very much predominant here. As well, it was to serve to let the list as a whole know that there are different mindsets out there that are very different from the typical sysadmin IT-centric mindset.
Re: 7.2 update instructions
On 02/19/2016 08:09 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: On 02/18/2016 03:16 PM, Yasha Karant wrote: As the "old" partition scheme is increasingly considered "obsolete", for the new layout scheme, how does one not overwrite the entire file system other than having two separate hard drives, a "system" one and and "non-system" (e.g., /home ...) one (for which the "hard drives" could be multiple drives in a RAID configuration, etc., but not "system")? While this has nothing to do with what you originally posted, I'll bite. In my case I have set up a separate logical volume for /home from the one where / is mounted. Whether this LV is on the same volume group as the LV for / is irrelevant; in my case they are on the same VG, and I tell (told, in the case of one 'upgrade') the installer to use a particular existing LV for /, a particular partition for /boot, another LV for swap, and the last LV for /home. All are set to format *except* the one for /home. It took a bit of time to get used to the EL7 installer's way of doing mount points, but now that I've used it a few times I really prefer it to the old way for many (but not all) use cases. But my question is 'why do you always seem to pick the hard way?' to do things. (I already have a good idea why, actually, as it has to do with a basic difference between 'Computer Science' and 'Information Technology' (as defined by the ACM's 2008 Computing Curricula Standards) and a basic difference between the CS mindset and the IT mindset.) Just understand that most of the advice you're going to get here is squarely in the IT (as defined by the ACM) mindset, including from me. Actually, it has a great deal to do with the original post; however, your exposition of a workable methodology is reasonably clear and will be the mechanism for going forward and I thank you for your clarity. Presumably, to move existing to-save partitions from the older file system structure to the more current structure is not possible with an "imaging" method, such as dd, but will work with a full backup of an existing high level file system mounted upon a "physical" partition" (e. g., using tar perhaps with lossless compression) and then restore. The second point you raise -- the difference between computer science and engineering versus information technology -- requires a response and clarification, as you posted your views to a public list (anyone may view/read). However, as your comment is off the mission of this list (as I have discovered, engineering design issues are not for this list, but rather mostly technology), would it be appropriate for me to post a response? The differences are deep and fundamental. Yasha Karant
Re: 7.2 update instructions
On 02/18/2016 03:16 PM, Yasha Karant wrote: As the "old" partition scheme is increasingly considered "obsolete", for the new layout scheme, how does one not overwrite the entire file system other than having two separate hard drives, a "system" one and and "non-system" (e.g., /home ...) one (for which the "hard drives" could be multiple drives in a RAID configuration, etc., but not "system")? While this has nothing to do with what you originally posted, I'll bite. In my case I have set up a separate logical volume for /home from the one where / is mounted. Whether this LV is on the same volume group as the LV for / is irrelevant; in my case they are on the same VG, and I tell (told, in the case of one 'upgrade') the installer to use a particular existing LV for /, a particular partition for /boot, another LV for swap, and the last LV for /home. All are set to format *except* the one for /home. It took a bit of time to get used to the EL7 installer's way of doing mount points, but now that I've used it a few times I really prefer it to the old way for many (but not all) use cases. But my question is 'why do you always seem to pick the hard way?' to do things. (I already have a good idea why, actually, as it has to do with a basic difference between 'Computer Science' and 'Information Technology' (as defined by the ACM's 2008 Computing Curricula Standards) and a basic difference between the CS mindset and the IT mindset.) Just understand that most of the advice you're going to get here is squarely in the IT (as defined by the ACM) mindset, including from me.
Re: 7.2 update instructions
As I am using SL 7.1, the answer below should suffice (assuming it works seemingly as advertised). I fully understand from past experience that EL, unlike SLES, does not allow an upgrade in place for major releases, only minor releases (e.g., upgrade in place SL 7.1 to SL 7.m for whatever m turns out to be). For SL N to SL N+1, etc., one must be willing to sacrifice whatever is on the partitions that must be overwritten (/ , /boot , /usr, /bin/ , ...) but not on what can be "untouched" during the N to N+1 process (e.g., /opt , /usr/local if this is a separate partition from /usr , ... ). As the "old" partition scheme is increasingly considered "obsolete", for the new layout scheme, how does one not overwrite the entire file system other than having two separate hard drives, a "system" one and and "non-system" (e.g., /home ...) one (for which the "hard drives" could be multiple drives in a RAID configuration, etc., but not "system")? On 02/17/2016 07:12 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: If you;re already on SL 7.x, you should be able to mount the CD and do "yum -y update/mnt/[whatever]/Packages/sl-release*.rpm" and get most of the changes availabale. <>
Re: 7.2 update instructions
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Yasha Karantwrote: > I have burned the current production SL 7.2 4 Gbyte install DVD. The DVD > boots but does not seem to have an upgrade option, only an install option. > Note that I plan to overwrite all files/partitions used by the system (but > not /home , /opt , /usr/local that is a separate partition from /usr, and > the like). This has been heavily discussed over in the CentOS lists. The dependencies for updating a RHEL server to RHEL 7 are potentially dangerous enough that RHEL is recommending against it. They provide a utility, but it's proven pretty fragile if you've been installing non-standard components, as I've seen you attest to various times on this list. And the regression testing for that kind of major, major upgrade to systemd based service management and the re-architecture of NetworkManager and the switch from "/bin" to a symlink to "/usr/bin" is just plain nasty to cope with. So bringing the published tools into Scientific Linux compatibility is a serious, serious potential for one heck of a lot of work. If your host is already SL 7.1, you should be able to simply use the "scientific/7/" repos to get the updated > Currently, a number of add-on repositories (e.g., elrepo) for 7.1 are > searched by the software installer. Will these be saved and used for 7.2 or > must these manually either be saved or reinstalled after the 7.2 update? Those are mostly using "epel/7/", "elrepo/7/", etc., and should not be a problem if you are already on SL 7.x. > Are there instructions (URL?) for the upgrade, or is there a mechanism to > invoke the DVD-based installer to do the update? I do not want to use an > Internet update because of the latency -- I want to do the upgrade from > local (DVD) media. Is this possible? > > Yasha Karant If you;re already on SL 7.x, you should be able to mount the CD and do "yum -y update /mnt/[whatever]/Packages/sl-release*.rpm" and get most of the changes availabale.
7.2 update instructions [2]
I have found the following: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/249330/centos-7-2-now-to-update CentOS 7 (through and including 7.1) offered the |Applications | System Tools | Software Update| applet. This applet allowed users to update CentOS 7. Where is the applet in 7.2 v1511? I do not see that anymore. Yes, I know of |yum -y update|. I executed the |yum -y update| command, which is how I got from CentOS 7 to CentOS 7 (7.2 v1511). 1 Answer This is a bug in the Upstream(Redhat) which has been reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290868 You can solve this issue by installing the |gnome-packagekit-updater| package with this command. |sudo yum install gnome-packagekit-updater | Once this package is installed you will find the ICON where it used to be. i.e: Applications | System Tools | Software Update You can also start the GUI Updater from command line once it is installed by invoking this command: |sudo gpk-update-viewer | End quote. I understand that the above applies to CentOS 7.2, but SL 7.2 and all other RHEL re-distributions, not binaries licensed from Red Hat for fee, now must go through the "Red Hat subsidiary" CentOS for the source from which to build a distro (e.g., SL 7.2) . Thus, the same procedure should work if one knows how to point the upgrade path to a local DVD. Note that I use MATE, not Gnome, as my primary GUI system. Must I use Gnome for the above correctly to function, or will an invocation from a command line in a MATE terminal GUI application suffice? Has anyone done the above, and, if so, what cautions (warnings, "gotchas") are needed? Note that I have attempted to install the above gnome-packagekit-updater with the following error diagnostics and failure: [root@jb344 ykarant]# yum install gnome-packagekit-updater Loaded plugins: langpacks Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package gnome-packagekit-updater.x86_64 0:3.14.3-5.el7 will be installed --> Processing Dependency: gnome-packagekit(x86-64) = 3.14.3-5.el7 for package: gnome-packagekit-updater-3.14.3-5.el7.x86_64 [snip -- very long list -- 294 RPM files updated] Total 5.1 MB/s | 340 MB 01:07 Running transaction check Running transaction test Transaction check error: file /usr/lib/systemd/system/blk-availability.service from install of device-mapper-7:1.02.107-5.el7_2.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package lvm2-7:2.02.105-14.el7.x86_64 file /usr/sbin/blkdeactivate from install of device-mapper-7:1.02.107-5.el7_2.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package lvm2-7:2.02.105-14.el7.x86_64 file /usr/share/man/man8/blkdeactivate.8.gz from install of device-mapper-7:1.02.107-5.el7_2.1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package lvm2-7:2.02.105-14.el7.x86_64 Error Summary - [root@jb344 ykarant]# Any assistance would be appreciated. Yasha Karant On 02/16/2016 11:15 PM, Yasha Karant wrote: I have burned the current production SL 7.2 4 Gbyte install DVD. The DVD boots but does not seem to have an upgrade option, only an install option. Note that I plan to overwrite all files/partitions used by the system (but not /home , /opt , /usr/local that is a separate partition from /usr, and the like). Currently, a number of add-on repositories (e.g., elrepo) for 7.1 are searched by the software installer. Will these be saved and used for 7.2 or must these manually either be saved or reinstalled after the 7.2 update? Are there instructions (URL?) for the upgrade, or is there a mechanism to invoke the DVD-based installer to do the update? I do not want to use an Internet update because of the latency -- I want to do the upgrade from local (DVD) media. Is this possible? Yasha Karant <>
7.2 update instructions
I have burned the current production SL 7.2 4 Gbyte install DVD. The DVD boots but does not seem to have an upgrade option, only an install option. Note that I plan to overwrite all files/partitions used by the system (but not /home , /opt , /usr/local that is a separate partition from /usr, and the like). Currently, a number of add-on repositories (e.g., elrepo) for 7.1 are searched by the software installer. Will these be saved and used for 7.2 or must these manually either be saved or reinstalled after the 7.2 update? Are there instructions (URL?) for the upgrade, or is there a mechanism to invoke the DVD-based installer to do the update? I do not want to use an Internet update because of the latency -- I want to do the upgrade from local (DVD) media. Is this possible? Yasha Karant