William L. Maltby scribbled on Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:49 PM:
an
update of a live server without adequate testing and/or fallback plan is
akin to unassisted suicide. It won't be your foot you shot yourself in
if something goes drastically wrong.
LOL! Clear and to the point. Good one!
Thanks guys for the various suggestions
really do apprecite
but as u guys say i shd follow ..
have a perfect backup system and then do the upgrade
really apprecite
regards
fabian
simon
I just updated from an i386 CentOS 5 system today, using the reccommendeds
steps on my server, and
You are right, there is a difference:
upgrade
Is the same as the update command with the --obsoletes flag set.
See update for more details.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
You are right, there is a difference:
upgrade
Is the same as the update command with the --obsoletes flag set.
See update for more details.
If the /etc/yum.conf file contains:
obsoletes=1
yum update will be the same as yum upgrade.
The yum.conf file will have
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
You are right, there is a difference:
upgrade
Is the same as the update command with the --obsoletes flag set.
See update for more details.
If the /etc/yum.conf file contains:
obsoletes=1
yum update will be the same as yum upgrade.
The
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
...
Which is why yum upgrade is recommended, yum update may or may not work
for everyone, depending on this flag
Many have expressed concern because they've used yum update instead of
yum upgrade.
My point is that it might not be a problem.
Mogens
--
Mogens Kjaer,
Mogens Kjaer wrote on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:55:58 +0200:
The yum.conf file will have this line unless manually removed
And you are right, too :-) William mentioned the config file, btw, he just
didn't mention the flag.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet
Mogens Kjaer kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika perjantai, 27. kesäkuuta
2008):
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
...
Which is why yum upgrade is recommended, yum update may or may not work
for everyone, depending on this flag
Many have expressed concern because they've used yum update instead of
yum
fabian dacunha wrote:
i jus wanted to know if i could SAFELY apply the updates since its a live
server running our companys primary DNS and mail server
noone has your exact configuration, so the only way to know if it will
for sure work for you would be to test it on a staging server
Why don't you clone your machine, or use Vmware or something, and do an test
before you do it with your production-machine? Asking this sort of question is,
well, rather meaningless IMO. Your setup is unique considering what tweaks you
might've done to it. YMMV as they say. What works for me,
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 11:35 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
fabian dacunha wrote:
i jus wanted to know if i could SAFELY apply the updates since its a live
server running our companys primary DNS and mail server
In case you missed it, there was a recommended two step and parameter
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 21:46 +0300, fabian dacunha wrote:
Dear All,
I am curently running a CENTOS server with the following setup
CentOS release 5 (Final)
Kernel 2.6.18-8.1.8.el5xen on an i686
Stating the obvious, you are WAY behind on updates, including many
security patches.
William L. Maltby wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:48:48 -0400:
2. yum upgrade # not update
that's supposed to be the same.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
___
CentOS mailing
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 21:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
William L. Maltby wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:48:48 -0400:
2. yum upgrade # not update
that's supposed to be the same.
IIRC, that's true if default config file wasn't modified with certain
parameters. Do I mis-remember? IIRC,
I just updated from an i386 CentOS 5 system today, using the reccommendeds
steps on my server, and it went fine.
So it *should* also go fine for you, but, as has been said before, Your
Mileage May Vary.
2008/6/26 William L. Maltby [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 21:31 +0200, Kai
15 matches
Mail list logo
