Re: v2.99 upgrade vs. Install to 3.0?

"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.aurora.user
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 19:25 -0400, Charles Tryon wrote:
> 
> I now have a working version 2.99 of Aurora running on my U2, doing
> pretty much everything that I need it to do.  (The
> system-config-something tools all seem to seg-fault, but I can work
> around most of those gui tools anyway.)  I'm currently on a project to
> consolidate several smaller Intel/Linux servers on my home network on
> to that one box.  It's actually running well enough that I trust the
> box to stay stable, though you can bet I'll be making lots of backups!
> 
> The question then is, what do I do when 3.0 finally comes out?

yum update. :)

> First, do we have any idea when 3.0 will be ready, other than, "When
> it's done"?  Not that I'm pushing!  I'm just trying to get a handle on
> what my options are.

I'm in the middle of moving. The earliest I can forsee 3.0 being done is
August.

> Second, is it likely that, given a working 2.99 install, is it going
> to be a matter of "upgrading", or a fresh install?  Again, no one can
> see into the future, but is there a general rule that Beta to Full
> Release migrations are really only safe if you install again from
> scratch?

yum update should do the trick. the only packages I see changing are
hal, and the system-config-* bits that segfault. Maybe kernel if someone
finds a showstopping bug.

~spot

_______________________________________________
Aurora-sparc-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.auroralinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aurora-sparc-user
Aurora FAQ: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mas01r/aurorafaq.html
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.