guethling at googlemail.com
Mon Sep 21 18:29:33 UTC 2009
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Clay Weber <claydoh at midmaine.com> wrote:
> In theory, yes. But in the alpha stage something obsolete might not get
> removed right away, if the new and as-yet-untested packages are mis-configured
> in that area
> Clay Weber
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Derek Broughton <derek at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Sascha Güthling wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Though I will make a complete new install for the final release I
>>>> think the update would work too. The update system is smart enough to
>>>> install all the new package and kick out obsolete ones. It's probably
>>>> all the ongoing changes in the repositories that make trouble right
>>> No, Sascha, the update mechanism is not smart enough to "install all
>>> the new package and kick out obsolete ones" from the alphas. Apt-get
>>> only compares version numbers, and that is often misleading in the
>>> alpha stage. You might get away with updating from an RC to the
>>> released version, but betas and especially alphas should _not_ be
>>> updated to production systems.
>> I don't understand what is wrong or misleading with comparing version
>> numbers. If a newer version becomes available it will be installed by
>> the update mechanism.
> Precisely. For once I find myself in almost complete disagreement with
> 1) a dist-upgrade will, indeed, install the correct new packages if the
> desktop metapackage is installed. It _may_ not properly handle certain
> other issues, which is why we have an upgrade manager now, but _those_
> issues would occur when upgrading from an RC just as much as with upgrading
> from an alpha, which leads to ...
> 2) it can not _possibly_ be different to use apt-get/aptitude to upgrade
> from an Alpha or from an RC.
> 3) it equally _shouldn't_ be more of an issue to upgrade to a "production"
> system from an alpha using the upgrade-manager - though it strikes me as
> pretty scary to actually _use_ a system that's been running testing software
> as a "production" system.
>> At the end (meaning after an update) the whole
>> system should only contain the newest versions of all installed
>> packages and obsolete packages should have been removed. So if the
>> repository stays the same I should be able to update all the way from
>> alpha1 to the final release. Right?
> Of course you can.
That's how I thought it would be. Assuming that everything is
configured the right way I should have the same packages installed no
matter what system I come from.
I can imagine how often it happens in the alpha stage that packages
are not (yet) configured right or changes made in different packages
at the same time effect each other. But that's why alphas are not
recommended as production systems. I experienced several updates in
the last few weeks after which my system would not boot correctly. I
had to fix it with another update a day later from the recovery
I agree (not only) with your 3rd point. I actually use my test
installation for all kinds of tests. I test programs and
configurations on it before I transfer them to my production system.
That's why I have a test installation. If I break something I can
still work with the other one. My production system gets upgraded to
the next version when it is officially released.
More information about the kubuntu-users