On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 04:25:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think we should provide recommendations on how to recover and make sure
> > that we point out that network upgrades might need a remote control
> > mechanism
> > (remote console access) just in case.
>
> Right, agreed.
I've ad
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 03:04:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 25 March 2007 12:48, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Would you mind doing such an install test? I think we are going to
> > push this in, but given the timing I would definitely be more
> > comfortable to have that extra assurance.
On Sunday 25 March 2007 12:48, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Would you mind doing such an install test? I think we are going to
> push this in, but given the timing I would definitely be more
> comfortable to have that extra assurance.
I've tested that aptitude from unstable works fine during new D-I i
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:29:43AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 03:20:17AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > No, see the mail I sent previously, many things can go wrong after an
> > > upgrade
> > > and new kernel install: LILO, udev and device reorderin
On Monday 26 March 2007 00:29, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Yes, that's the works situation. I think it might make sense to tell
> users to have a 2.4 "failback" kernel for those situations (so they can
> continue the upgrade)
If a 2.4 kernel works at all on their system...
pgpyrgCxmR
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 03:20:17AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > No, see the mail I sent previously, many things can go wrong after an
> > upgrade
> > and new kernel install: LILO, udev and device reordering might make a
> > system
> > unbootable before (and even after) the kernel upgrade.
>
On Saturday 24 March 2007 01:11, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Uhm? Do I understand that you're suggesting using apt-get instead of
> aptitude to *avoid* aptitude's automated handling of packages that one
> would want to have removed? That doesn't make sense to me.
Only in the context of method "B", w
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 07:15:43PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > And even then my tests have so far shown that the system will
> > > probably still boot (though X may not start).
> > And will the networking necessarily start? That could be a problem for
> > a number of users if it doesn't.
> I d
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:33:14PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > This is not essential as long as you don't try to reboot before a new
> > > kernel has been installed.
> > My concern here is: what happens if a
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070324 01:12]:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > > - making sure openoffice does not get removed
> > > Shouldn't it be easier to get it removed and the reinstall it?
>
> > Same arguments as earlier.
>
> > Problem with open
On Sunday 25 March 2007 00:29, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> But the steps you mentioned initially (removing synaptic -> removing
> GNOME) already did that! If you have the desktop task in sarge
> installed it means: synaptic removed -> GNOME removed -> Desktop task
> removed -> KDE remov
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> This mail is just a reply to Javier's points. I'll follow up with a second
> mail with a proposal for a procedure 'C'.
>
> On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:17, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > Ok. I'll see how I can fit that into
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:11:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:51:21PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:11:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> > > > It can however also b
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:11:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I think it's much more important to avoid unnecessary conditionals in the
> release notes if we want to avoid user confusion.
>
> Instead, including it in the instructions with a note explaining it's a
> no-op for users without O
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:51:21PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:11:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > It can however also be worked around with:
> > >aptitude unmarkauto openoffice.org
> > And
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 05:11:59PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> > It can however also be worked around with:
> >aptitude unmarkauto openoffice.org
>
> And that should be a no-op for users who don't have OOo installed, right, so
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > - making sure openoffice does not get removed
> > Shouldn't it be easier to get it removed and the reinstall it?
> Same arguments as earlier.
> Problem with openoffice.org is that tasksel used to install
> openoffice.org-bin wh
On Thursday 22 March 2007 00:22, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:42:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > This is not essential as long as you don't try to reboot before a new
> > kernel has been installed.
>
> My concern here is: what happens if an upgrade is interrupted in the
> mid
On Thursday 22 March 2007 12:24, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> 1.- remove the desktop task (use tasksel)
No! See other mail.
pgpISqrKlQkJd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
This mail is just a reply to Javier's points. I'll follow up with a second
mail with a proposal for a procedure 'C'.
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:17, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Ok. I'll see how I can fit that into the release notes. In any case,
> after going through some of the iss
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This is not essential as long as you don't try to reboot before a new
> > kernel has been installed.
>
> My concern here is: what happens if an upgrade is interrupted in the middle,
> due to such things as a power outage, hardw
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:43:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:17:08PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > > If aptitude is started after that, it will still try to remove quite a
> > > few
> > > packages. Most of these are old and OK, but a few shoul
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 07:22:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Yes. The "flip-flop" in question is that aptitude has been the recommended
> tool since the sarge release, and is the method that the release team has
> encourage users to submit upgrade reports using, and it's now proposed to
>
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:04:00PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And apt-get has different bugs (#410695), doesn't honor recommends, and
> > hasn't been what we've been recommending users use for upgrade testing for
> > the p
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> And apt-get has different bugs (#410695), doesn't honor recommends, and
> hasn't been what we've been recommending users use for upgrade testing for
> the past months...
>
> We can't flip-flop the recommended upgrade procedure ev
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:17:08PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > If aptitude is started after that, it will still try to remove quite a few
> > packages. Most of these are old and OK, but a few should possibly be
> > kept:
> > - openoffice.org
> > - openbsd-inetd
> > - pppoecon
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:42:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > However, users running with 2.6 kernels in Sarge and upgrading, might
> > encounter issues with udev (it does not support versions prior to
> > 2.6.15 and sarge provided 2.6.8), as described in #325568 (Upgrade path
> > for udev needs d
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 04:42:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > However, users running with 2.6 kernels in Sarge and upgrading, might
> > encounter issues with udev (it does not support versions prior to
> > 2.6.15 and sarge provided 2.6.8), as described in #325568 (Upgrade path
> > for udev needs d
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 16:42, Frans Pop wrote:
> - apt-get install coreutils apt initrd-tools
Forgot to mention that this will remove aptitude, tasksel and base-config.
pgprImmNcTnGL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 19 March 2007 01:59, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> There's a very important section in the Release Notes with a FIXME:
> Upgrade your kernel or userland first?
> http://www.debian.org/releases/etch/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.
>html#s-kernelorder
>
> Based on #413458 (und
30 matches
Mail list logo
