Re: RH tools and conf changes (was: Re: Vi backspace key problem)

[Dag Wieers <dag wieers com>]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Ed Wilts wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:05:59PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Chester R. Hosey wrote:
> > 
> > My bet is that they don't support it because of the complexity of doing it 
> > right. The same arguments hold for the callback mechanism (although it 
> > is easier to notify something has to happen, than doing what is required).
> 
> There are two types of upgrades.  The first is to do the upgrade
> "offline" - from anaconda.  This *is* supported.
> 
> > That said, even though it's not supported, Red Hat still allows you to do 
> > it with the upgradeany keyword. Not for the faint of heart though :)
> 
> This is the second type of upgrade.  This *will* break when going from
> RHEL 3 to RHEL 4.  It's not just for the faint of heart - it's for the
> suicidal (like the poster on redhat-list who did an rpm force upgrade on
> glibc).  Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I thought you had to do upgradeany from RHEL3 to RHEL4 too. It was like 
that from RHEL2.1 -> RHEL3 iirc.

In any case I was only talking about the upgradeany kind of upgrade (using 
anaconda). Since upgradeany is just ignoring the distribution-check I'm 
not sure why you see it as 2 different things if upgrades are supported
(ie. in that case the distribution check does not fail) I'd think both 
were essentially the same.

Unless I'm wrong :)

Kind regards,
--   dag wieers,  dag wieers com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]