Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on? Thanks, and with some regards, Thorsten
If I am not mistaken you can, but most people will tell you to reinstall. Of course i could be wrong. On 8/12/05, Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner <thorsten@aus-satz.de> wrote:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
Thanks, and with some regards,
Thorsten
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org
-- Ken Swain ken@kenswain.com http://kenswain.com "Spoof them all, let god sort them out."
Ken, just in the way of whole-upgrading the system, or just newer parts? Am 12.08.2005 um 18:02 schrieb Ken Swain:
If I am not mistaken you can, but most people will tell you to reinstall. Of course i could be wrong.
On 8/12/05, Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner <thorsten@aus-satz.de> wrote:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:59:03PM +0200, Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner wrote:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
Insert CD1 of beta(n), boot, chose "upgrade existing system", point it to the beta(n-1) installation. This path usually works, though not officially supported/recommended. Rasmus
Am 12.08.2005 um 18:03 schrieb Rasmus Plewe:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:59:03PM +0200, Thorsten von Plotho- Kettner wrote:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
Insert CD1 of beta(n), boot, chose "upgrade existing system", point it to the beta(n-1) installation.
This path usually works, though not officially supported/recommended.
Ah, just for the Betas, that´s enough information for me, thank you. Thought just the FINALs would be working for my needs in this way. Regards, Thorsten
Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner <thorsten@aus-satz.de> writes:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
Update should support this - but it's completely untested. Getting updates working from one major release to another (9.3 to 10.0) is already a problem, getting updates working from one beta to the other is nearly impossible. Nevertheless some of us do and it works most of the time... Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Hi, On Friday, August 12, 2005 at 18:25:39, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner <thorsten@aus-satz.de> writes:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
Update should support this - but it's completely untested. Nevertheless some of us do and it works most of the time...
Thats right. You can also just use y2pmsh for that. Once beta2 is out start y2pmsh and delete your beta1 installation sources with source -R <source id> then add the beta2 installation source with source -a <source url> Now you can start the "upgrade" with upgrade solve commit That will bring all packages to beta2 state. Henne -- Henne Vogelsang, Subsystems "Rules change. The Game remains the same." - Omar (The Wire)
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 4:40 am, in message <20050812164015.GI26804@suse.de>, hvogel@suse.de wrote: Hi,
On Friday, August 12, 2005 at 18:25:39, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thorsten von Plotho- Kettner <thorsten@aus- satz.de> writes:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an
UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
Update should support this - but it's completely untested. Nevertheless some of us do and it works most of the time...
Thats right. You can also just use y2pmsh for that.
Once beta2 is out start y2pmsh and delete your beta1 installation sources with
source - R <source id>
then add the beta2 installation source with
source - a <source url>
Now you can start the "upgrade" with
upgrade solve commit
That will bring all packages to beta2 state.
Henne
Hi Henne Great trick. Shall we put this onto the Wiki? I find this rather useful ....
Update should support this - but it's completely untested.
Getting updates working from one major release to another (9.3 to 10.0) is already a problem, getting updates working from one beta to the other is nearly impossible. Nevertheless some of us do and it works most of the time...
Hello Andreas Personally I never had an issue, since I prefer a clean install anyhow, but some people on a Linux Roadshow we had recently pointed out that they keep having issues upgrading. What can be done to get this going better? In my experience it requires a lot of testing and retrofitting of rpm's to make sure that things just work from one release to another. Using apt for that is great, since apt is very picky about differences in rpm's and will complain big time. Of course any custom changes or self rolled rpm's would break, but in general a straight upgrade path has to work. Again just relaying some feedback from some customers in NZ.
Andreas Girardet wrote:
Update should support this - but it's completely untested.
Getting updates working from one major release to another (9.3 to 10.0) is already a problem, getting updates working from one beta to the other is nearly impossible. Nevertheless some of us do and it works most of the time...
Hello Andreas
Personally I never had an issue, since I prefer a clean install anyhow, but some people on a Linux Roadshow we had recently pointed out that they keep having issues upgrading.
What can be done to get this going better? In my experience it requires a lot of testing and retrofitting of rpm's to make sure that things just work from one release to another. Using apt for that is great, since apt is very picky about differences in rpm's and will complain big time. Of course any custom changes or self rolled rpm's would break, but in general a straight upgrade path has to work.
Whilst with Lycoris, we were required to ensure that all and any rpm would clean upgrade from the current stable to the current beta during our development cycle. We did not test beta to beta has this was testing a case that would never be tested by the customer. I personally prefer the clean install approach when shifting versions, however, not everyone can afford this. It should be an active design and development goal to ensure a clean upgrade path. Cheers Mike
"Andreas Girardet" <agirardet@novell.com> writes:
Update should support this - but it's completely untested.
Getting updates working from one major release to another (9.3 to 10.0) is already a problem, getting updates working from one beta to the other is nearly impossible. Nevertheless some of us do and it works most of the time...
Hello Andreas
Personally I never had an issue, since I prefer a clean install anyhow, but some people on a Linux Roadshow we had recently pointed out that they keep having issues upgrading.
What can be done to get this going better? In my experience it requires a lot of testing and retrofitting of rpm's to make sure that things just work from one release to another. Using apt for that is great, since apt is very picky about differences in rpm's and will complain big time. Of course any custom changes or self rolled rpm's would break, but in general a straight upgrade path has to work.
Is apt really superior to rpm here? rpm complains as well. Our QA team tests updates and we fix issues that we get reported but all in all updating is rather complex with so many different installations. I would welcome testing of updates - and any bug reports on these...
Again just relaying some feedback from some customers in NZ.
Thanks, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Saturday 13 August 2005 19:13, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
things just work from one release to another. Using apt for that is great, since apt is very picky about differences in rpm's and will complain big time. Of course any custom changes or self rolled rpm's would break, but in general a straight upgrade path has to work.
Is apt really superior to rpm here? rpm complains as well.
Umm; AFAIK using apt on top of RPM doesn't make a difference. RPM does the real work anyway :)
Our QA team tests updates and we fix issues that we get reported but all in all updating is rather complex with so many different installations. I would welcome testing of updates - and any bug reports on these...
Just upgrading 9.3 -> 10.0b1 with y2pmsh. Looks good so far. -- // Janne
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 4:24 am, in message <200508131924.55786.Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com>, Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 13 August 2005 19:13, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
things just work from one release to another. Using apt for that is great, since apt is very picky about differences in rpm's and will complain big time. Of course any custom changes or self rolled rpm's would break, but in general a straight upgrade path has to work.
Is apt really superior to rpm here? rpm complains as well.
apt is just a tool to make thinks easier, but I guess y2pmsh does the same really .....
On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 18:13 +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
"Andreas Girardet" <agirardet@novell.com> writes:
Is apt really superior to rpm here? rpm complains as well.
It is still RPM with an APT like interface.
Our QA team tests updates and we fix issues that we get reported but all in all updating is rather complex with so many different installations. I would welcome testing of updates - and any bug reports on these...
Again just relaying some feedback from some customers in NZ.
Thanks, Andreas
-- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
Is apt really superior to rpm here? rpm complains as well.
You are certainly correct. Apt is is a very good tool to quickly test straight upgrade paths between many different installed apps and versions. By using a virtual machine system you can then recreate a prestine install and try many different combinations in a few days. When there is an issue, things get fixed and so on.
Our QA team tests updates and we fix issues that we get reported but all in all updating is rather complex with so many different installations. I would welcome testing of updates - and any bug reports on these...
I will do my best, if you can tell my boss to work fulltime for you then I can certainly give you some guarantees ;) Update testing is not complex as I see it, but just VERY VERY time consuming. Speaking from experience. Or many eyes will do the trick. But a more systematic approach can certainly give better results. As a QA team I am sure they have loads of other tasks on , especially with the weekly release schedule that we are planning here. This makes it very fast pace. I love it! I will start doing some update consolidation work going to beta2 and file bug reports. Maybe this could be my community task! I do actually enjoy that .... Thanks for taking time and answering all the emails, Andreas!
On Friday 12 August 2005 17:59, Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner wrote:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
yes, via "System Update" from the ftp tree bye adrian -- Adrian Schroeter SuSE AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany email: adrian@suse.de
On Saturday 13 August 2005 5:00 am, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
On Friday 12 August 2005 17:59, Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner wrote:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
yes, via "System Update" from the ftp tree
But, updates MUST become solid and stable installs. In all the years I've used SUSE, at the exclusion of all other distros., I've only had 1 update work correctly. Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.
Hi, On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Fred A. Miller wrote:
On Saturday 13 August 2005 5:00 am, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
On Friday 12 August 2005 17:59, Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner wrote:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
yes, via "System Update" from the ftp tree
But, updates MUST become solid and stable installs. In all the years I've used SUSE, at the exclusion of all other distros., I've only had 1 update work correctly.
Updating is rock solid if you assist the dependency management manually where necessary. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
"Fred A. Miller" <fmiller@lightlink.com> writes:
On Saturday 13 August 2005 5:00 am, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
On Friday 12 August 2005 17:59, Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner wrote:
Will there be an easy way (like by YAST2) or some command for an UPGRADE(!) from Beta 1 > Beta 2 and so on?
yes, via "System Update" from the ftp tree
But, updates MUST become solid and stable installs. In all the years I've used SUSE, at the exclusion of all other distros., I've only had 1 update work correctly.
If the update to 10.0 does not work for you, please file a bugreport. I agree completely with the goal, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On Saturday 13 August 2005 19:14, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
But, updates MUST become solid and stable installs. In all the years I've used SUSE, at the exclusion of all other distros., I've only had 1 update work correctly.
If the update to 10.0 does not work for you, please file a bugreport. I agree completely with the goal,
Just updated via y2pmsh. Worked fine otherwise, but SUSE kernel still doesn't work for me. It hangs on 'probing PCI hardware(00)' as it did with 9.3. Should i file a bug? As mainline kernels are ok, i guess it might not be that hard to track down the patch in SUSE kernel that barfs here. I'll give it a go later on. -- // Janne
On Sunday 14 August 2005 08:48, Janne Karhunen wrote:
If the update to 10.0 does not work for you, please file a bugreport. I agree completely with the goal,
Just updated via y2pmsh. Worked fine otherwise, but SUSE kernel still doesn't work for me. It hangs on 'probing PCI hardware(00)' as it did with 9.3.
Started instrumenting SUSE kernel to see what's going on. Which reminds me - does this (10.0) ship with NLKD? Would be great to try that for the debugging. Even latest mainline kernels seem to work (2.6.13-rc6-git5). PCI related diff is not that big, so this shouldn't be that hard to track down. In theory :) Oh, another thing. Looks like nvidias ncurses installer is broken with 10.0. Known bug? Same shonk that breaks up yast curses ui? -- // Janne
Even latest mainline kernels seem to work (2.6.13-rc6-git5). PCI related diff is not that big, so this shouldn't be that hard to track down. In theory :)
Turns out rc5-bk3 kernel shipped with SUSE 10 boots up properly if acpi interpreter is _enabled_. Disabling it hangs kernel on initialization. Mainline works fine in this respect (with and without acpi). Getting closer.. On the nvidia-driver front it seems that current driver 7667 doesn't like SUSE kernel. Installing kernel module yields error '-1 No such device' and tons of nasty warnings on compilation. Anyone else experiencing these (x86-64)? On third boot fam caused busy loop (enormous sysload) while starting beagle/mono. Killing fam caused mono to go bananas causing another busy loop. -- // Janne
Janne Karhunen kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika sunnuntai, 14. elokuuta 2005 15:55):
On the nvidia-driver front it seems that current driver 7667 doesn't like SUSE kernel. Installing kernel module yields error '-1 No such device' and tons of nasty warnings on compilation. Anyone else experiencing these (x86-64)? Try with newer 7676 driver, which seems to work ok (at least for me ;-) ).
/jyri
Janne Karhunen <Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday 14 August 2005 08:48, Janne Karhunen wrote:
If the update to 10.0 does not work for you, please file a bugreport. I agree completely with the goal,
Just updated via y2pmsh. Worked fine otherwise, but SUSE kernel still doesn't work for me. It hangs on 'probing PCI hardware(00)' as it did with 9.3.
Started instrumenting SUSE kernel to see what's going on. Which reminds me - does this (10.0) ship with NLKD? Would be great to try that for the debugging.
Unfortunately it does not contain NLKD yet.
Even latest mainline kernels seem to work (2.6.13-rc6-git5). PCI related diff is not that big, so this shouldn't be that hard to track down. In theory :)
Oh, another thing. Looks like nvidias ncurses installer is broken with 10.0. Known bug? Same shonk that breaks up yast curses ui?
For yast it was a issue inside of YaST that should be fixed for beta2 but other apps should work, alsamixer worked for me, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Janne Karhunen <Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday 13 August 2005 19:14, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
But, updates MUST become solid and stable installs. In all the years I've used SUSE, at the exclusion of all other distros., I've only had 1 update work correctly.
If the update to 10.0 does not work for you, please file a bugreport. I agree completely with the goal,
Just updated via y2pmsh. Worked fine otherwise, but SUSE kernel still doesn't work for me. It hangs on 'probing PCI hardware(00)' as it did with 9.3. Should i file a bug? As mainline kernels are ok, i guess it might not be that hard to track down the patch in SUSE kernel that barfs here. I'll give it a go later on.
Please file a bug - and attach a serial console first. The opensuse.org site contains some information on this, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
participants (13)
-
Adrian Schroeter -
Andreas Girardet -
Andreas Jaeger -
Eberhard Moenkeberg -
Fred A. Miller -
Henne Vogelsang -
Janne Karhunen -
Jyri Palokangas -
Ken Schneider -
Ken Swain -
Michael Honeyfield -
Rasmus Plewe -
Thorsten von Plotho-Kettner