Michael A. Peters wrote: > Generally when upgrading Linux it is best to do a fresh install of the > new operating system. This is because of the libraries primarily. > > What you usually want to do is keep /home (and possibly /usr/local) on > their own partitions so that you can reinstall w/o needing to worry > about that. I don't keep /usr/local on it's own myself - for the library > problem (new shared libraries rarely work well with binaries that want > the old ones - that's why there's a crapload of compat packages) Which libraries exactly? I just compared the libraries on the computer I upgraded to FC-1 from RH-9 with the one I installed FC-1 on (both having been brought up2date). While I didn't make a careful comparison, I couldn't see any difference in the libraries (except one or two I'd installed myself). Are you claiming that there is a problem with libraries if you upgrade? How do you know, if you never upgrade yourself? I've always upgraded from RH-7 onwards (possibly earlier), and I've never had any "library problem" of the sort you describe. (I had to install on the computer mentioned above because of a hardware failure.) For some reason this issue -- installation versus upgrading -- seems to bring out the dogmatists, most of whom as far as I can see have never actually tried both methods, but still seem sure which is best. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
