> >Have they ever fixed the problem that upgrading at least used to be
> >impossible (or nearly so)?
>
> Nope thats still the same, but I've always found doing upgrades not a very
> good idea anyway. Usually that just ends up leaving a bunch of old left
> over files and the upgrades usually cannot be uninstalled easily (if at all)
> if needbe. Personally I've found it better just to install a new clean
> system, then configure it to do everything that the old one did and swap
> hard drives. A plus is that then the original system can be kept around
> just in case, with the added ability of being placed back in service in just
> a couple of minutes. Redhat still has some of its own anoyances, most
> annoying the configuration files scattered all over the place and the
> non-standard configurations.
FWIW, debian must have the smoothest upgrade path I've seen. I've used
it for a couple of years now, and the ability to have a program check
via ftp and download and install the latest version of prgrams in a
running system is just excellent.
It does still have some (small) kinks in it. Upgrading X from within X
is not smooth (specifically several upgrades of xdm recently). The most
lacking feature in the upgradeability that I see is an inability to go
backwards. For example, the latest version (3.3.2.3a-7) of xlib6 (with
libs for xlib5 programs, most specifically netscape), doesn't install
properly. Dropping back to the -6 version requires a manual ftp,
finding the program, and installing by hand via dpkg. If one could
simply within dpkg say "go back a version", with all the excellent
version and dependency checking between the various programs, then it
would be much smoother.
Billy
-- Billy.Harvey@thrillseeker.net- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/