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 05-26-2012, 12:42 AM
Max Pyziur
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Fri, 25 May 2012, Les Mikesell wrote:

> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>>
>> I *do* still have an FC2 box.
>>
>> Would anyone second this procedure:
>> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=4794 5
>>
>
> It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
> want to do it at this point. Why not back up anything you might want
> to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
> wanted?

It's a test machine that replicates a production server. The production
machine was setup in May 2011 when CentOS was in 5.8 and no 6.x had shown
up.

So, I need a text 5.x box.

So do you (or anyone) second this or am I going to have to find out on my
own and report back to you.



Max Pyziur
pyz@brama.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-26-2012, 12:52 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I *do* still have an FC2 box.
>>>
>>> Would anyone second this procedure:
>>> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=4794 5
>>>
>>
>> It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
>> want to do it at this point. *Why not back up anything you might want
>> to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
>> wanted?
>
> It's a test machine that replicates a production server. The production
> machine was setup in May 2011 when CentOS was in 5.8 and no 6.x had shown
> up.
>
> So, I need a text 5.x box.

Even so, what's the point of an in-place upgrade compared to a fresh
5.x install? Even if it works, there will be old cruft left around
that you don't need and that may cause surprises later.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-29-2012, 12:48 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On 05/25/2012 07:52 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>>>> I *do* still have an FC2 box.
>>>>
>>>> Would anyone second this procedure:
>>>> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=4794 5
>>>>
>>> It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
>>> want to do it at this point. Why not back up anything you might want
>>> to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
>>> wanted?
>> It's a test machine that replicates a production server. The production
>> machine was setup in May 2011 when CentOS was in 5.8 and no 6.x had shown
>> up.
>>
>> So, I need a text 5.x box.
> Even so, what's the point of an in-place upgrade compared to a fresh
> 5.x install? Even if it works, there will be old cruft left around
> that you don't need and that may cause surprises later.

What Les said ...

If the production box is already CentOS 5.x ... it would seem to me that
you already know what needs to be done to make your items run on CentOS-5.8.

If you upgrade a Fedora box to CentOS, while it can be done, it will
contain many packages that are not part of CentOS. It will not be
stable and it will not be a duplicate of your production box.

Backup the old info and wipe the machine, put 5.x on it, bring in the
items you need from the backup (most of which you should know how to do,
since you are already using it on 5.8 in production).

It is not worth the hassle of trying to remove all the Fedora Core items
later on and doing an in-place upgrade ... at least not in my opinion.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 03:04 PM
"Max Pyziur"
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

> On 05/25/2012 07:52 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>>>>> I *do* still have an FC2 box.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would anyone second this procedure:
>>>>> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=4794 5
>>>>>
>>>> It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
>>>> want to do it at this point. Why not back up anything you might want
>>>> to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
>>>> wanted?
>>> It's a test machine that replicates a production server. The production
>>> machine was setup in May 2011 when CentOS was in 5.8 and no 6.x had
>>> shown
>>> up.
>>>
>>> So, I need a text 5.x box.
>> Even so, what's the point of an in-place upgrade compared to a fresh
>> 5.x install? Even if it works, there will be old cruft left around
>> that you don't need and that may cause surprises later.
>
> What Les said ...
>
> If the production box is already CentOS 5.x ... it would seem to me that
> you already know what needs to be done to make your items run on
> CentOS-5.8.
>
> If you upgrade a Fedora box to CentOS, while it can be done, it will
> contain many packages that are not part of CentOS. It will not be
> stable and it will not be a duplicate of your production box.

The point is to leave configurations, partitions, and other components as
close as possible to being intact. Since this is a server environment,
there are about 700-800 packages, not the 3000 that sit on desktop
machine. Make lists of rpms on the FC2 install, and then sdiff'ing with
the list of rpms installed from the CentOS upgrade should be one way of
identifying non-CentOS packages and/or duplications.

Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
proceed sequentially. But how much difference is there from FC2 to
FC6/CentOS 5.*?

MP
pyz@brama.com


> Backup the old info and wipe the machine, put 5.x on it, bring in the
> items you need from the backup (most of which you should know how to do,
> since you are already using it on 5.8 in production).
>
> It is not worth the hassle of trying to remove all the Fedora Core items
> later on and doing an in-place upgrade ... at least not in my opinion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 03:28 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>>
> The point is to leave configurations, partitions, and other components as
> close as possible to being intact.

Why isn't the point to match the existing CentOS box in production
closely instead?

> Since this is a server environment,
> there are about 700-800 packages, not the 3000 that sit on desktop
> machine.

If it is a server environment, you should be paying attention to the
supported life of the distribution. FC2 is long, long past its 'use
by' date.

> Make lists of rpms on the FC2 install, and then sdiff'ing with
> the list of rpms installed from the CentOS upgrade should be one way of
> identifying non-CentOS packages and/or duplications.

Just get the package list from the working C5 box and feed it to
kickstart or to yum after a minimal install.

> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
> proceed sequentially.

No, it makes sense to upgrade things that were designed and tested as
upgrades, and to re-install things that weren't. You might, with a
lot of work and care, make the upgrade operational, but the result
will be a one-of-a-kind beast that doesn't belong in a production
environment.

> But how much difference is there from FC2 to
> FC6/CentOS 5.*?

The point is that nobody knows, and there's no reason for anyone to
know. You weren't supposed to run things that long on Fedora. But
if you are going to let things go that long again with no maintenance,
I'd recommend jumping all the way to C6 even if it is more work now,
so 'yum update' will take care of it for years.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 03:47 PM
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Since this is a server environment, there are about 700-800 packages,
not the 3000
>> that sit on desktop machine.
>
> If it is a server environment, you should be paying attention to the
> supported life of the distribution. FC2 is long, long past its 'use
> by' date.

Very much so. Almost anywhere I've ever worked, no management would
*allow* a production server that was this far out of date.

Further, if it were up to me, there's *no* way I'd allow fedora in a
production environment. It's a development line; I'd expect management to
demand either RHEL or CentOS, which are stable production-quality lines.
They don't have the latestgreatestmostwonderfulness... but when that moves
into these distros, they're not going to break when you look at them
wrong.
>
> Just get the package list from the working C5 box and feed it to
> kickstart or to yum after a minimal install.
>
>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>> proceed sequentially.

So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>
> No, it makes sense to upgrade things that were designed and tested as
> upgrades, and to re-install things that weren't. You might, with a
> lot of work and care, make the upgrade operational, but the result
> will be a one-of-a-kind beast that doesn't belong in a production
> environment.
>
I agree. If someone handed me a mess like that, I'd be building a new
production server, test it, and get that out of production as fast as I
possibly could. If you, or whoever, got another job, or were hit by a car
tomorrow, whoever had to pick it up would be SOL, and it'd probably crash
before they figured out what had been done. It would take you as much time
to document as to
a) build a new, stable CentOS 5 or 6 box
b) install everything required on it
c) recompile anything in-house that needed to be rebuilt
d) test it all, and put it into production,

and I guarantee that you'd miss documenting something vital.

>> But how much difference is there from FC2 to
>> FC6/CentOS 5.*?

A *lot*.
<snip>
mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 04:07 PM
"Max Pyziur"
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Since this is a server environment, there are about 700-800 packages,
> not the 3000
>>> that sit on desktop machine.
>>
>> If it is a server environment, you should be paying attention to the
>> supported life of the distribution. FC2 is long, long past its 'use
>> by' date.
>
> Very much so. Almost anywhere I've ever worked, no management would
> *allow* a production server that was this far out of date.
>
> Further, if it were up to me, there's *no* way I'd allow fedora in a
> production environment. It's a development line; I'd expect management to
> demand either RHEL or CentOS, which are stable production-quality lines.
> They don't have the latestgreatestmostwonderfulness... but when that moves
> into these distros, they're not going to break when you look at them
> wrong.

To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.

Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2 machine
used in a production environment, and no effort was made to create that
impression.


>>
>> Just get the package list from the working C5 box and feed it to
>> kickstart or to yum after a minimal install.
>>
>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>>> proceed sequentially.
>
> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?

Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
my point in starting this thread.

MP
pyz@brama.com

>>
>> No, it makes sense to upgrade things that were designed and tested as
>> upgrades, and to re-install things that weren't. You might, with a
>> lot of work and care, make the upgrade operational, but the result
>> will be a one-of-a-kind beast that doesn't belong in a production
>> environment.
>>
> I agree. If someone handed me a mess like that, I'd be building a new
> production server, test it, and get that out of production as fast as I
> possibly could. If you, or whoever, got another job, or were hit by a car
> tomorrow, whoever had to pick it up would be SOL, and it'd probably crash
> before they figured out what had been done. It would take you as much time
> to document as to
> a) build a new, stable CentOS 5 or 6 box
> b) install everything required on it
> c) recompile anything in-house that needed to be rebuilt
> d) test it all, and put it into production,
>
> and I guarantee that you'd miss documenting something vital.
>
>>> But how much difference is there from FC2 to
>>> FC6/CentOS 5.*?
>
> A *lot*.
> <snip>
> mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 04:45 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>>>> proceed sequentially.
>>
>> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>
> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
> my point in starting this thread.

My experience with fedora was that a mid-rev update in FC5 included a
kernel that would not run on the fairly mainstream IBM server where I
was running it. So all bets are off...

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 05:02 PM
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

Max Pyziur wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
<snip>
> To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
> router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
> co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.
>
> Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
> Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
> appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2 machine
> used in a production environment, and no effort was made to create that
> impression.

Ok. That *was* the impression you gave.
<snip>
>>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>>>> proceed sequentially.
>>
>> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>
> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
> my point in starting this thread.

*sigh* I was being sarcastic. Doing all that work would be silly, esp.
with what would be needed to do so. Again, it would be *much* less work to
build a good box of 5.8, or maybe 6.2, and load and configure that.
<snip>
mark


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 05:18 PM
John R Pierce
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On 05/30/12 9:07 AM, Max Pyziur wrote:
> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
> my point in starting this thread.

sure. take new system, clean install 5.latest on it, configure your
services. deploy, retire/recycle old box.



--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09 AM.

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