On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 15:57 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 19:15 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > >On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 14:15 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>RedHat Linux distributions have always been designed to be upgradeable; > > >>right from the outset the RPM package manager had as one of its design > > >>goals the ability to easily upgrade everything. The "official" way of > > >>upgrading though is to use the anaconda installer on the CDs/DVD to do > > >>the upgrade. This is the way least likely to result in problems. > > >>Upgrading via yum/apt may also work, yum will not work without major effort. > > >> but YMMV; anaconda is coded with > > >>knowledge of things that need to be done (e.g. on FC4 it will remove the > > >>i386 version of perl on x86_64 installs), information that isn't > > >>available to yum or apt. > > >> > > >> > > >Well, that's what I call broked design. > > > > > >Ralf > > > > > > > > I would be very interested in your solution to fix this particular issue > > any other way > It's beyond my knowledge on this particular issue (IIRC, FC3 shipped > i386 perl packages, while FC4 is going to be shipped with x86_64 > packages). Esp. I don't know x86_64's rpm/yum/apt are handling mixed > architecture installations. > > Anyway, for rpm, apt, yum and similar tools to work correctly, all such > kind of information must be encoded into rpms. Therefore using anaconda > to achieve an architecture switch for certain packages is a hack and > violates rpm, yum, apt etc. working principles. > Please explain that. Anaconda is a different tool (distribution installer) than yum, apt, rpm (package updater/installer). I don't see that as a hack at all. The change occurs with anaconda during installation and not on a daily basis. > Ralf > >
