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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-30-2010, 09:35 AM
Basil Chupin
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On 30/11/2010 20:19, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> I was running Lucid 10.04.1 as a fresh install since it was released
>> (and upgraded to latest).
>>
>> I also had Maverick installed on a separate set of HDs to see what it
>> was doing. A few 'features' which I had in 10.04.1 I couldn't get (but
>> didn't really try too hard to solve this hassle) on Maverick but,
>> nevertheless, I decided that what I *COULD* do is to upgrade to Maverick
>> using the Update Manager 'cause it kept telling me that 10.10 was
>> available for my Lucid.
> Thanks for the blog entry...

My pleasure.....

BC

--
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's 20, much like your IQ.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-30-2010, 01:44 PM
Tom H
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 30/11/2010 20:19, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the blog entry...
>
> My pleasure.....

So you're the new Karl.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-30-2010, 03:31 PM
Alan Pope
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On 30 November 2010 07:34, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> The Upgrade Manager 'suggested' to me that it would take 105 minutes to
> download the upgrade files (at which point I went shopping after I
> answered "Go Ahead") and after this downloading finished it "told" me
> that it would take 90 minutes to process the new files, except that at
> the 45 minute mark the whole bloody sheebang stopped because the stoopid
> upgrade system was waiting for me answer "Yes" to the question if I
> accepted the EULA re the ttf mscorefonts -- and there was NO way I could
> respond to this because the EULA menu was BEHIND the Update Manager menu
> and there was no way which I knew (and I tried even waiving a live
> chicken's leg [from one of the chicken's next door] to bring up the
> 'background' EULA menu to be able to answer "YES!"
>

The tl;dr version of this mail is basically:-

* Upgrades download more than clean installs (not exactly 'news' given
many upgrades will be upgrading more packages than a base install will
have, so will inevitably have more to download)
* You unfortunately hit a bug in the upgrade process

Now, if the purpose of your mail was to rant about the upgrade then
that's done, but I'm more interested in how that can be fixed for
others. Bitching about a problem on a users mailing list wont get the
issue fixed. My personal opinion is that people bitch a lot about
upgrades but rarely do anything to help fix them. They then recommend
nobody else upgrades, thus perpetuating a cycle of fail as nobody ever
upgrades, thus valuable feedback is never given, they never get
better, and people continue to recommend nobody upgrades!

I just visited this url which (given I'm a bit sad) I hand crafted:-

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bugs

So bugs.launchpad.net slash <product name>, slash plus source, slash
<package name>, slash plus bugs.

Where <product name> is ubuntu, and <package name> is update-manager,
the tool you had the issue with. Note you can use this formula to get
to the bugs for any package in Ubuntu, replacing the <package name>.
Or just google it Anyway, I digress.

I then arrived at a page listing _lots_ of bugs in update-manager. I
typed "focus" in the search field because you clearly described the
issue where you had a problem with the window focus.

This url (unbroken) will take you there:-

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bugs?field.searchtext=focus&orderby=-importance&search=Search&field.status:list=NEW&fie ld.status:list=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.stat us:list=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&field.status:l ist=CONFIRMED&field.status:list=TRIAGED&field.stat us:list=INPROGRESS&field.status:list=FIXCOMMITTED& field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.omit_dup es=on&field.has_patch=&field.has_no_package=

Or this:-

http://linkpot.net/peaches/

Not sure if any of those fully describe the error, if not, maybe you
could file a new one?

Cheers,
Al.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-30-2010, 06:48 PM
Mark
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
<upgrade vs. fresh install>
>
I had similar experiences with CentOS when I was using that, but the
distinctions were generally much clearer:

For minor releases (i.e., 5.1->5.2), use 'yum update' because it works
really well (for yum). 'Yum upgrade' does the same thing.

For major releases (i.e., 5.x->6.0), reinstall. Period. Upgrades
sometimes work, but they come with major headaches, partly because
it's yum (and rpms) and partly because it's a huge deal that is tricky
to upgrade under the best of circumstances. 'Yum update' doesn't work
across the major release boundary, by design.

With Ubuntu, the release cycle is different and the numbers don't
really reflect the same kind of distinction (major vs. minor release,
etc.), but I suspect similar principles apply.

When I decide to move up to Ubuntu 11.04, I plan to a) wait a month or
so for the release to stabilize, something I did not do with 10.10
(but which, I believe, has not given me too much trouble) and b)
download the CD and do a fresh install on a new / partition so I can
keep the old 10.10 one as a cushion for my fragile ego....

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-01-2010, 08:21 AM
Tom H
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Mark <mhullrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
> <upgrade vs. fresh install>
>>
> I had similar experiences with CentOS when I was using that, but the
> distinctions were generally much clearer:
>
> For minor releases (i.e., 5.1->5.2), use 'yum update' because it works
> really well (for yum). *'Yum upgrade' does the same thing.
>
> For major releases (i.e., 5.x->6.0), reinstall. *Period. *Upgrades
> sometimes work, but they come with major headaches, partly because
> it's yum (and rpms) and partly because it's a huge deal that is tricky
> to upgrade under the best of circumstances. *'Yum update' doesn't work
> across the major release boundary, by design.
>
> With Ubuntu, the release cycle is different and the numbers don't
> really reflect the same kind of distinction (major vs. minor release,
> etc.), but I suspect similar principles apply.

You cannot compare Ubuntu and CentOS.

Going from CentOS 5.0 to CentOS 5.1 is similar to going from Ubuntu
10.04 to Ubuntu 10.04.1. IT isn't an upgrade and is therefore
performed in a straightforward way with yum/apt.

Going from CentOS 5.6 to CentOS 6.0 will be similar to going from
Ubuntu 6.10/7.04 to Ubuntu 10.10.

But I agree with your re-install philosophy. Going from CentOS 5.6 to
CentOS 6.0 or from Ubuntu 10.04 to Ubuntu 10.10, re-installation's the
best solution.

(You can upgrade Fedora "across the major release boundary" with yum
but it isn't recommended in the same way that Ubuntu doesn't recommend
upgrading with apt.)

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-01-2010, 06:16 PM
Mark
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You cannot compare Ubuntu and CentOS.
>
Of course I can, and you did, too.... :-)

(I can compare apples and oranges, too, but that's not the point.)

I meant the analogy to be illustrative, not exemplary.

At least we agree on when to update vs. when to reinstall (which was my point).

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-06-2010, 09:55 AM
Basil Chupin
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On 12/01/2010 03:31 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 30 November 2010 07:34, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>> The Upgrade Manager 'suggested' to me that it would take 105 minutes to
>> download the upgrade files (at which point I went shopping after I
>> answered "Go Ahead") and after this downloading finished it "told" me
>> that it would take 90 minutes to process the new files, except that at
>> the 45 minute mark the whole bloody sheebang stopped because the stoopid
>> upgrade system was waiting for me answer "Yes" to the question if I
>> accepted the EULA re the ttf mscorefonts -- and there was NO way I could
>> respond to this because the EULA menu was BEHIND the Update Manager menu
>> and there was no way which I knew (and I tried even waiving a live
>> chicken's leg [from one of the chicken's next door] to bring up the
>> 'background' EULA menu to be able to answer "YES!"
>>
>>
> The tl;dr version of this mail is basically:-
>
> * Upgrades download more than clean installs (not exactly 'news' given
> many upgrades will be upgrading more packages than a base install will
> have, so will inevitably have more to download)
> * You unfortunately hit a bug in the upgrade process
>
> Now, if the purpose of your mail was to rant about the upgrade then
> that's done,

It is astonishing what people will write when they have some
preconceived idea about another person's intentions.

There have been numerous questions from people in this forum about
whether to upgrade or to go for a clean install. Responses varied.

I just went thru the exercise of doing something which I never did do
before and so thought that it would be useful for those who will be
asking the same questions about upgrade vs clean install, to be
proactive and provide some info about my experience.

I simply mentioned what I experienced.

I did not complain.

I did not rant.

I did not whinge.

I did not blame anybody for my hassles.

I did not accuse anyone of incompetence.

I did not state that Ubuntu was a heap of horse manure.

I did thank NoOp for providing the answer for how to get out of such a
cock-up (which he provided in an answer to a another problem quite some
time ago and which I wrote down in my "little black book").

And yet I get some unknown calling me "the new Karl", and also getting
this "rebuke", together with URLs which show that the problem which I
encountered is known. Fine, up to a point, and I thank you for the
references.

But the logic behind this is somewhat beyond me: nobody has ever
mentioned here that they have struck this problem of the upgrade from
Lucid to Maverick not being able to be responded to in the upgrade
manager when it came to upgrading the msfonts - meaning, how then should
I have gone looking for the answer to a problem I hadn't come across yet
and which has not been mentioned in this list?

How can anyone go looking for an answer to a problem which they haven't
yet encountered?

> but I'm more interested in how that can be fixed for
> others. Bitching about a problem on a users mailing list wont get the
> issue fixed.

Get it right: I did not "bitch".

> My personal opinion is that people bitch a lot about
> upgrades but rarely do anything to help fix them. They then recommend
> nobody else upgrades, thus perpetuating a cycle of fail as nobody ever
> upgrades, thus valuable feedback is never given, they never get
> better, and people continue to recommend nobody upgrades!
>

There have been many - MANY - comments in the past about not upgrading
but doing clean installs *and* vice-versa.

None of those posters, either claiming to upgrade or to clean install -
ever attracted a single comment from you about their comments.

So why now?

> I just visited this url which (given I'm a bit sad)

Well, I am a bit more than just "a bit sad"......

[pruned]

Kind regards,

BC


--
Attorney: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
Witness: Are you qualified to ask that question?


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-06-2010, 03:00 PM
Tom H
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 03:31 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
>> On 30 November 2010 07:34, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> The Upgrade Manager 'suggested' to me that it would take 105 minutes to
>>> download the upgrade files (at which point I went shopping after I
>>> answered "Go Ahead") and after this downloading finished it "told" me
>>> that it would take 90 minutes to process the new files, except that at
>>> the 45 minute mark the whole bloody sheebang stopped because the stoopid
>>> upgrade system was waiting for me answer "Yes" to the question if I
>>> accepted the EULA re the ttf mscorefonts -- and there was NO way I could
>>> respond to this because the EULA menu was BEHIND the Update Manager menu
>>> and there was no way which I knew (and I tried even waiving a live
>>> chicken's leg [from one of the chicken's next door] to bring up the
>>> 'background' EULA menu to be able to answer "YES!"
>>
>> * Upgrades download more than clean installs (not exactly 'news' given
>> many upgrades will be upgrading more packages than a base install will
>> have, so will inevitably have more to download)
>>
>> * You unfortunately hit a bug in the upgrade process
>>
>> Now, if the purpose of your mail was to rant about the upgrade then
>> that's done,
>
> It is astonishing what people will write when they have some
> preconceived idea about another person's intentions.
>
> There have been numerous questions from people in this forum about
> whether to upgrade or to go for a clean install. Responses varied.
>
> I just went thru the exercise of doing something which I never did do
> before and so thought that it would be useful for those who will be
> asking the same questions about upgrade vs clean install, to be
> proactive and provide some info about my experience.

It was a PITA post that had no reason to be on this list except that
you felt like blogging.

If only you had kept it as short as Alan's summary above.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-07-2010, 10:24 AM
Basil Chupin
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On 07/12/2010 03:00, Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> On 12/01/2010 03:31 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
>>> On 30 November 2010 07:34, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Upgrade Manager 'suggested' to me that it would take 105 minutes to
>>>> download the upgrade files (at which point I went shopping after I
>>>> answered "Go Ahead") and after this downloading finished it "told" me
>>>> that it would take 90 minutes to process the new files, except that at
>>>> the 45 minute mark the whole bloody sheebang stopped because the stoopid
>>>> upgrade system was waiting for me answer "Yes" to the question if I
>>>> accepted the EULA re the ttf mscorefonts -- and there was NO way I could
>>>> respond to this because the EULA menu was BEHIND the Update Manager menu
>>>> and there was no way which I knew (and I tried even waiving a live
>>>> chicken's leg [from one of the chicken's next door] to bring up the
>>>> 'background' EULA menu to be able to answer "YES!"
>>> * Upgrades download more than clean installs (not exactly 'news' given
>>> many upgrades will be upgrading more packages than a base install will
>>> have, so will inevitably have more to download)
>>>
>>> * You unfortunately hit a bug in the upgrade process
>>>
>>> Now, if the purpose of your mail was to rant about the upgrade then
>>> that's done,
>> It is astonishing what people will write when they have some
>> preconceived idea about another person's intentions.
>>
>> There have been numerous questions from people in this forum about
>> whether to upgrade or to go for a clean install. Responses varied.
>>
>> I just went thru the exercise of doing something which I never did do
>> before and so thought that it would be useful for those who will be
>> asking the same questions about upgrade vs clean install, to be
>> proactive and provide some info about my experience.
> It was a PITA post that had no reason to be on this list except that
> you felt like blogging.
>
> If only you had kept it as short as Alan's summary above.
I unintentionally do yourself an unintended injustice by responding to
your post on the basis that you simply did not comprehend what I wrote
in response to Alan - an affect for which I did not plan or wish for.

If you reread, carefully, what I wrote, as a response to Alan, you will,
hopefully, eventually perhaps, understand what I wrote.

BC

--
Attorney: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
Witness: Are you qualified to ask that question?


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 12-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Tom H
 
Default Upgrading from Lucid to Maverick: Fresh, new Install vs Upgrade using Update Manager

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Basil Chupin <blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 07/12/2010 03:00, Tom H wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> *wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2010 03:31 AM, Alan Pope wrote:
>>>> On 30 November 2010 07:34, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> *wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Upgrade Manager 'suggested' to me that it would take 105 minutes to
>>>>> download the upgrade files (at which point I went shopping after I
>>>>> answered "Go Ahead") and after this downloading finished it "told" me
>>>>> that it would take 90 minutes to process the new files, except that at
>>>>> the 45 minute mark the whole bloody sheebang stopped because the stoopid
>>>>> upgrade system was waiting for me answer "Yes" to the question if I
>>>>> accepted the EULA re the ttf mscorefonts -- and there was NO way I could
>>>>> respond to this because the EULA menu was BEHIND the Update Manager menu
>>>>> and there was no way which I knew (and I tried even waiving a live
>>>>> chicken's leg [from one of the chicken's next door] to bring up the
>>>>> 'background' EULA menu to be able to answer "YES!"
>>>> * Upgrades download more than clean installs (not exactly 'news' given
>>>> many upgrades will be upgrading more packages than a base install will
>>>> have, so will inevitably have more to download)
>>>>
>>>> * You unfortunately hit a bug in the upgrade process
>>>>
>>>> Now, if the purpose of your mail was to rant about the upgrade then
>>>> that's done,
>>> It is astonishing what people will write when they have some
>>> preconceived idea about another person's intentions.
>>>
>>> There have been numerous questions from people in this forum about
>>> whether to upgrade or to go for a clean install. Responses varied.
>>>
>>> I just went thru the exercise of doing something which I never did do
>>> before and so thought that it would be useful for those who will be
>>> asking the same questions about upgrade vs clean install, to be
>>> proactive and provide some info about my experience.
>> It was a PITA post that had no reason to be on this list except that
>> you felt like blogging.
>>
>> If only you had kept it as short as Alan's summary above.
>
> I unintentionally do yourself an unintended injustice by responding to
> your post on the basis that you simply did not comprehend what I wrote
> in response to Alan - an affect for which I did not plan or wish for.
>
> If you reread, carefully, what I wrote, as a response to Alan, you will,
> hopefully, eventually perhaps, understand what I wrote.

It was irrelevant. Your initial post was a silly blog entry a-la-karl.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:57 PM.

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