Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
> Rehashing the conversation elsewhere, the problem with DIY and similar
> is that it doesn't make much sense in the context of Spins, which are
> non-productized but not particularly do-it-yourself.
While they're not DIY in the context of the initial
On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 12:46 -0400, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2014, at 19:37, Ray Strode wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but
> > during the alluded-to discussion a few alternative names came up that
> > would have been better than fedora-release
Hi
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I tried the upgrade during weekend. And I tried to simulate this requires
> during upgrade.
> The problem is that once you get fedora-release-standard, you will get
> other *-standard (e.g.
> firewalld-config-standard) and there is no wa
On 10/03/2014 10:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
To that end, fedup will grow a new mandatory option: --product. It will
take one of four arguments: "standard" (non-productized), "server",
"workstation" or cloud.
For those rebels who use fedora-upgrade(8): this script now ask you right after di
On 10/01/2014 10:28 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Fedora officially only supports upgrades from a*fully-upgraded Fedora*
to the next version, so we could work around this by adding a temporary
explicit Requires: fedora-release-standard on the F20 fedora-release
package, thereby forcing all upgrade
On 3 Oct 2014, at 19:37, Ray Strode wrote:
I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but
during the alluded-to discussion a few alternative names came up that
would have been better than fedora-release-standard:
1) fedora-release-nonstandard
2) fedora-release-custom
3) fed
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:56:41AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >> I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the
> >> nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more
> >> descriptive anyway.
> > But vanilla is the most delicious.
> But has no meaning that context for pre
Am 04.10.2014 um 18:08 schrieb Jaroslav Nahorny:
Am 03.10.2014 um 23:57 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
"generic" is technical speak or for "normal" people outside IT at best
has a negative context to "generica" and spam
I never heared a
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 03.10.2014 um 23:57 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> "generic" is technical speak or for "normal" people outside IT at best
>> has a negative context to "generica" and spam
I never heared about „generica” an
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 19:37 -0400, Ray Strode wrote:
> I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but
> during the alluded-to discussion a few alternative names came up that
> would have been better than fedora-release-standard:
>
> 1) fedora-release-nonstandard
That this was
On 10/03/2014 07:37 PM, Ray Strode wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the
nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more
descriptive anyway.
I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but
during the alluded-to discussion a
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 06:18:11PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the
>> nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more
>> descriptive anyway.
>
> But vanilla is
Hi,
> I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the
> nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more
> descriptive anyway.
I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but
during the alluded-to discussion a few alternative names came up that
woul
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 06:18:11PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the
> nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more
> descriptive anyway.
But vanilla is the most delicious.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 17:06 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> standard: choose this if none of the above apply; in particular
> choose
>this if you are using an alternate-desktop spin of Fedora
I'd add a comma right after "in particular."
> Feedback from this wide audience appreciated. Would you k
Hi
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and *because* non productized variants are continued there should
> be no emphasis instead *equal options*
>
Fedora as a project has already discussed that extensively and decided
otherwise. We are not really revisiting that discussion
Am 04.10.2014 um 00:29 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> "generic drugs" is the one thing nobody wants to have in context honestly
>
> Not true but irrelevant anyway since I was just pointing out that generic is
> not a technical term.
>
Hi
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> "generic drugs" is the one thing nobody wants to have in context honestly
>
Not true but irrelevant anyway since I was just pointing out that generic
is not a technical term.
why would you try to force somebody to a "prodcut setup"
>
Am 03.10.2014 um 23:57 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> "generic" is technical speak or for "normal" people outside IT at best
> has a negative context to "generica" and spam
>
>
> It is not really technical. Generic is often used in ot
Hi
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> "generic" is technical speak or for "normal" people outside IT at best
> has a negative context to "generica" and spam
It is not really technical. Generic is often used in other contexts by
"normal" people: Ex: Generic drugs which mea
Am 03.10.2014 um 23:12 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> To that end, fedup will grow a new mandatory option: --product. It will
> take one of four arguments: "standard" (non-productized), "server",
> "workstation" or cloud.
>
> Wh
Hi
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> To that end, fedup will grow a new mandatory option: --product. It will
> take one of four arguments: "standard" (non-productized), "server",
> "workstation" or cloud.
>
When the discussion about the "standard" name came up earlier i
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> To that end, fedup will grow a new mandatory option: --product. It will
> take one of four arguments: "standard" (non-productized), "server",
> "workstation" or cloud.
I volunteered to come up with the text if you dont' specify --produc
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 16:28 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 12:16 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
> > will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
> >
> > Several suggestio
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 12:37 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:28:22PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > The thing to note is that in all scenarios, the user *MUST* fully update
> > their F20 system first, or the results will be undefined and could be
> > unpleasant. We nee
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:28:22PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> The thing to note is that in all scenarios, the user *MUST* fully update
> their F20 system first, or the results will be undefined and could be
> unpleasant. We need to spell this out very clearly to our upgrading
> users.
Here'
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 15:33 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 09/24/2014 06:16 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > * Upgrades from Fedora 20 remain non-productized. They pick up
> > fedora-release-standard and upgrade only their existing packages.
>
> Can you please explain to me, what is the di
On 09/24/2014 06:16 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
* Upgrades from Fedora 20 remain non-productized. They pick up
fedora-release-standard and upgrade only their existing packages.
Can you please explain to me, what is the difference between non-productized
Fedora and productized Fedora?
Do I
On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 12:16 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
> will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
>
> Several suggestions have been made that warrant discussion:
>
> 1) Upgrades from Fedora 20
On 2014-09-24, 16:22 GMT, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> In Czech we say "Když se kácí strom, létají třísky"
I have to admit I have hard time with this proverb. Whenever
I hear somebody to use it is usually to cover for his mistakes
or worse (it was a favorite proverb of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Hi
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Petr Hracek wrote:
> Preupgrade assistant performs assessment of the system from the
> "upgradeability" point of view.
> It is based on OpenSCAP engine.
> It reports potential risks for in-place upgrading system.
> fedup can call our API. For sure.
>
Was th
Preupgrade assistant performs assessment of the system from the
"upgradeability" point of view.
It is based on OpenSCAP engine.
It reports potential risks for in-place upgrading system.
fedup can call our API. For sure.
That's all.
On 09/30/2014 03:59 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
HI
On Tue, Sep
Hi
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Petr Hracek wrote:
In RHEL we are using preupgrade-assistant [1] which does this work.
> If user write a check script then it will inform user that upgrade is not
> supported.
> The check script can also inform user that e.g. mariadb changed structure
> and it'
Or better say, fedup remains as tool for upgrades.
On 09/30/2014 03:57 PM, Petr Hracek wrote:
No, definitely not.
preupgrade-assistant is only the tool which informs user or admin
what was change against the newest version and recommend actions for
inplace upgrades.
But as I mentioned. Curren
HI
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Petr Hracek wrote:
>
> No, definitely not.
>
> preupgrade-assistant is only the tool which informs user or admin
> what was change against the newest version and recommend actions for
> inplace upgrades.
> But as I mentioned. Currently now it's not available i
No, definitely not.
preupgrade-assistant is only the tool which informs user or admin
what was change against the newest version and recommend actions for
inplace upgrades.
But as I mentioned. Currently now it's not available in Fedora.
Preupgrade-assistant doesn't modify system at all.
On 0
2014-09-30 15:04 GMT+02:00 Petr Hracek :
>
> In RHEL we are using preupgrade-assistant [1] which does this work.
> If user write a check script then it will inform user that upgrade is not
> supported.
> The check script can also inform user that e.g. mariadb changed structure
> and it's required t
On 09/24/2014 06:22 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
Several suggestions have been made tha
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:14:40 -0400
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:27:04 -0400
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:16:06PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > I think either the first option (easy) or the last option
> > > (requiring fedup changes) will be pref
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:27:04 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:16:06PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I think either the first option (easy) or the last option (requiring
> > fedup changes) will be preferable. In the selectable case, I think
> > that fedup should opera
On 24 September 2014 10:16, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
> will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
>
> Several suggestions have been made that warrant di
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
>> will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
>>
>> Several su
Am 24.09.2014 um 19:12 schrieb Dennis Gilmore:
> I have updated a few machines by running "yum --releasever=21 install
> fedora-release" then "yum distro-sync" and not had any issues. As I
> understand this thread it is soley about what to do in the case of
> using fedup only. in which case we nee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:29:11 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 24.09.2014 um 18:16 schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
> > There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
> > will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 product
On 09/24/2014 11:28 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
Fourth option might be to make all installations that have gnome-shell
installed become Workstation, and leave others non-productized.
This is hardly a guarantee. I have several servers that get a default Fedora
install and I don't bother removing X
- Original Message -
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
>
> Ah, you're right. On the other hand I think all spins are somehow
> desktop related (at least now), so moving spins to use workstation
> as the base is probably desirable
>
> No. It is not. Work
Hi
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Ah, you're right. On the other hand I think all spins are somehow
> desktop related (at least now), so moving spins to use workstation
> as the base is probably desirable
>
No. It is not. Workstation is GNOME based. Most spins are f
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/24/2014 12:22 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > - Original Message - There has been some discussion in
> > various forums lately about how we will handle fedup upgrades from
> > Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 pro
Am 24.09.2014 um 18:22 schrieb Jaroslav Reznik:
>> Maybe we can go with first option and say, upgrades to products are not
>> supported, please reinstall. It's new beginning and say non-productized
>> update support will be gone in F22 timeframe and only productized updates
>> will be allowed
don
Am 24.09.2014 um 18:16 schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
> There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
> will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
>
> Several suggestions have been made that warrant discussion:
>
> * Upgrades from Fedora 20 remain non-pr
On 09/24/2014 06:16 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
> will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
>
> Several suggestions have been made that warrant discus
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:16:06PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I think either the first option (easy) or the last option (requiring
> fedup changes) will be preferable. In the selectable case, I think
> that fedup should operate as a non-productized upgrade unless
> otherwise specified at the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/2014 12:22 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message - There has been some discussion in
> various forums lately about how we will handle fedup upgrades from
> Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
>
> Several suggestions have been m
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we
> will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products.
>
> Several suggestions have been made that warrant discussion:
>
> * Upgrad
54 matches
Mail list logo
