FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-30-2012, 07:09 PM
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

Max Pyziur wrote:
>> Max Pyziur wrote:
>>>> Max Pyziur wrote:
>>>>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to use
> existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to build
> my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships. Given
> that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
> someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
> shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
> worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
> community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet looking
> for a recommendation for a clean install.

And we *all* are saying that doing other than a clean install, or a
parallel install, as I suggested in the article, is a bad idea.

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 07:13 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
> Thank you; this is very helpful.
>
> My hope is to upgrade; that way I don't have to change/specify partition
> topology,

But that takes a couple of minutes - or you could use the saved
kickstart info if FC2 saved it back then. Or install on the existing
partitions.

> and hopefully only minimally adjust the existing configurations.

And the part that matters should be in a dozen or so files in /etc.
Save copies, diff/merge anything you don't understand well enough to
do from scratch. Another few minutes.

> I have enough experience with unraveling rpm package
> dependency/duplication issues, having gone through F14->F15 DVD upgrade
> that failed/froze (in the end I worked with the "rescue" portion of the
> DVD and unraveled duplicate/missing package issues using yum and rpm; you
> can find that thread on the Fedora Users list).

So you know that can take a long time to get right... I don't see the
point of even considering it.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-31-2012, 08:22 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 02:56:24 PM Max Pyziur wrote:
> My hope is to upgrade; that way I don't have to change/specify partition
> topology, and hopefully only minimally adjust the existing configurations.

I have tried this type of upgrade before; I have not had it go well for the most part. The only way I'd try to do an FC2 to C5 upgrade is by incrementally upgrading up to FC4 or FC5 using install media, then boot the C5.8 install media with 'upgradeany'. It may break things very badly.

I have had to do this sort of upgrade on SPARC systems running Aurora SPARC Linux; did a yum-based upgrade up through a few revs, and it was a pain. I only did it because install media wasn't already available, and you had to go backrev to get booting media on my particular box (although the installed system worked fine once installed). It is really something I would rather not do without the preupgrade logic in place, primarily because of non-repo or third-party repo packages that may or may not be around any more on a newer repo; for that matter, the Fedora package set in the FC2 days is likely to be larger than the C5 package set unless you enable third party repos at install/upgrade time, and that isn't guaranteed to work.

This sort of discussion is in the archives several times, and I think I have put my particular recipe out there before. It is recommended by the upstream vendor, Red Hat, to not do any major version upgrades from one version of EL to another. EL4 was based from around FC3, and you are essentially talking about a direct upgrade from a pre-EL4 to EL5; these two are more different than you might think. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#Relationship_to_free_and_ community_distributions for info)

Beyond that, the upgradeany path is probably the least tested of all the anaconda install paths, and will likely traceback at the worst possible time. Upgrades aren't easy (even on Debian/Ubuntu where packages being upgraded can ask questions and do significant things, unlike in the RPM scriptlet case). Preupgrade has failed for me more than it has worked, going through several revs of Fedora.

Having said all of that, if you analyze your particular package set and you figure out that all of the packages have identical configs between FC2 (or EL4, for that matter) and EL5, and that you're not using a package that has had major changes and upgrades break data (like PostgreSQL; FC2 shipped a significantly older PostgreSQL than CentOS 5 does, and a major version upgrade on PostgreSQL requires some special handling), you might be able to get it to work.

But it will probably take more time to successfully upgrade than it will to do a fresh install with the same list of packages and a restore of compatible configurations onto that fresh install. But, it's your time to waste if you want to do so.

If you want to see this sort of thing on the MS OS, there is a YouTube video out there highlighting upgrading through all versions of Windows; the cruft leftover from Window 1.0, 2.0, and 3.x in a Windows 7 upgraded system is a thing to behold.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-31-2012, 09:21 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
>
> i will not buy the argument with the hardware because
> i had in the last years 4 notebooks, 3 workstations
> and two different notebooks of my co-developer which
> all done many dist-upgrades well if you know how
> to prepare and cleanup

What does 'last years' mean in kernels? New kernels have gotten
better. A google for "FC5 kernel Oops' has 'about 334,000
results', so I'm not the only one.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-31-2012, 09:21 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
>
> i will not buy the argument with the hardware because
> i had in the last years 4 notebooks, 3 workstations
> and two different notebooks of my co-developer which
> all done many dist-upgrades well if you know how
> to prepare and cleanup

What does 'last years' mean in kernels? New kernels have gotten
better. A google for "FC5 kernel Oops' has 'about 334,000
results', so I'm not the only one.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:50 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org