<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 04/02/12 22:41, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20120204224148.GA8381@annexia.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 07:55:45PM +0000, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Feb 4, 2012 2:14 AM, "Tethys" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sta296@astradyne.co.uk"><sta296@astradyne.co.uk></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Indeed. I recall a couple of years ago, someone from Red Hat posted
a list of reasons why rolling upgrades couldn't be done in the general
case, and a bunch of features that weren't possible without an external
installer like anaconda. This was met with a deafening silence from all
those in the Debian world that had been claiming RH was just being rubbish
in requiring an external installer.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Don't suppose you have a url for that. I would like to read it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There was (just a few days ago) another huge discussion about rolling
releases. You don't need me to find it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Apparently I do; I never saw my previous post on this thread either,
though, so I'm not sure how reliable the list is?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120204224148.GA8381@annexia.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This doesn't change what I said in the grandparent article. Even
Debian's rolling release generally only works by luck, and dpkg/apt is
something I constantly have to babysit on my servers.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120209">http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120209</a> says:<br>
Upgrades to Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 from the previous release, Debian
GNU/Linux 5.0 alias <q>Lenny</q>, are automatically handled by the
aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a
certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool. As always,
Debian GNU/Linux systems can be upgraded painlessly, in place, without
any forced downtime, but it is strongly recommended to read the <a
href="http://www.debian.org/releases/squeeze/releasenotes">release
notes</a> for possible issues, and for detailed instructions on
installing and upgrading.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20120204224148.GA8381@annexia.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
This won't ever change until programmers take a more serious attitude
to their job, ... programming. Which in the package manager case
means going to the library and studying ACID databases (as applied to
filesystems), formal specifications, and (semi-)formal proofs.
Perhaps when programmers are held criminally liable for their bugs
(like, say, civil engineers). Until then I don't have much hope.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I remain curious as to why RedHat are reluctant to provide even a
base-line level of confidence to RHEL users. Not even "Install RHEL5,
Upgrade immediately to RHEL6" is supported. Purely legal/administrative
reasons? Debian, Solaris, many other OSes manage at least this level of
confidence. As I say, I am curious as to why RedHat take this stance
with RHEL. This one thing made "Linux" (sic) look very bad to a recent
customer of mine.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
</body>
</html>