On 05/26/2015 05:45 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 16:06 -0500, Steven Stern wrote:
> On 05/26/2015 03:36 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 01:05:38PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2015 12:27 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>>> IIRC yum used to be recommended before fedup came along. In any
>>>> case
>>>> I've just upgraded with fedup and it worked again as it has for
>>>> the
>>>> last 4 or 5 upgrades.
>>>
>>> Before there was the aptly-named fedup, there was preupgrade,
>>> which worked
>>> just fine for me. Before that, the recommended upgrade was
>>> backup,
>>> reinstall and restore. Yes, there was yum upgrade, but it was
>>> very, very
>>> Not Recommended. Now, there's also the unofficial upgrade
>>> -fedora, and I'll
>>> be trying on this box Real Soon Now.
>>
>> Well, my first preupgrade experience was okayish, but I was also
>> very
>> new to linux then. However by the time preupgrade had resolved its
>> issues, I had already moved on to yum. I just find it a bit
>> surprising
>> that it is not *one of* the supported methods (meaning, QA tested),
>> specially since it works so reliably and with such short downtime.
>>
>
> If I were to add anything to the fedup documentation it would be
>
> Start this and then go to lunch. It's gonna be a while.
YMMV. In my case it was all over in 30 minutes, but I have a reasonably
fast
machine and Internet connection. I wouldn't expect the total elapsed
time to vary much with alternative upgrade methods.
poc
I had about 2800 packages to update, cleanup, and verify.
--
-- Steve