15 Nov
2006
15 Nov
'06
4:32 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:35 -0800, Brad Fuller wrote:
Joseph M. Gaffney wrote:
>
>> What's the difference? Couldn't I just keep FC5 and not go to FC6, for
>> example.
Yes, that is surely an option. I would not jump to fc6 right away...
(specially if you want/need the full Planet CCRMA experience which is
not available yet).
It is possible to upgrade from fcn to fcn+1 using just yum (if you have
enough disk space and network bandwidth). I usually install from scratch
but it is possible.
There some stuff here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq
Another link:
http://www.brandonhutchinson.com/Upgrading_Red_Hat_Linux_with_yum.html
I should have a Planet CCRMA specific "pitalls on upgrade" guide, it
should not be surprising that I have not had the time to do that yet :-)
What I would basically do is to record the packages installed prior to
the upgrade and then after the dust settles see what remains of the old
system and delete and/or upgrade those bits and pieces. Most probably
stock installs would upgrade fairly easy but the process gets more
complex as you start adding external packages. Should be fairly easy to
script given time...
Or, does CentOS have an easy upgrade path?
It is a tradeoff between stability and being up to date on the latest
basic libraries. I'm not yet building on top of anything but Fedora
Core.
-- Fernando
CentOS is simply RHEL (which is based on Fedora), and is supported for longer
than FC, but by the CentOS developers and contributors.
Now I remember, it's an enterprise version based on RHEL. However, I
don't know how much of Fedora is in RHEL. RHEL was started years before
Fedora. I imagine there is some, but doesn't Redhat pick and choose what
to put in. Besides, it's built for the enterprise, and stability as you
say.
As their site says:
CentOS-4 is a freely distributable OS built from the source at:
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os/i386/SRPMS
To me, that sounds like it would be a couple of steps back from FC.