[3546] in SIPB_Linux_Development
Re: update failure from fresh install
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)
Mon Sep 3 14:16:32 2001
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Angie Kelic <sly@MIT.EDU>, linux-dev@MIT.EDU
From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
Date: 03 Sep 2001 14:16:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: Greg Hudson's message of "Mon, 3 Sep 2001 14:12:39 -0400"
Message-ID: <sjm66b0rvgt.fsf@rcn.ihtfp.org>
OH, I bet _THAT_ is the problem !!!!
The SIPB installer is going to install the _old_ RPM format, so you
need to update_ws first to update the RPM format, and THEN take
the 9.0 update. I bet that's what's going on.
Thank you, greg.
-derek
Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> >> It says we're installing 8.4.0 just because, well, because I think
> >> we didn't want to deal with the versions changing out from under
> >> us, but I think the rpms are 8.4.25.
>
> > I'm fairly certain that _that_ is not sufficient. Everything I have
> > always been told was that you have to update to the latest 8.4.x
> > before updating to 9.0.x, and I've never heard that that has
> > changed.
>
> update_ws only uses the version number to decide whether there is an
> update to be taken; once the update has begun, the old version number
> isn't important. I wish the SIPB installer didn't lie about the
> version it installs (because it breaks mkserv and damages our ability
> to determine the history of a machine), but that's not the problem
> here.
>
> There is no general requirement that you take the most recent patch
> release before taking a full release, though it is often safer because
> we don't test all combinations. There is a specific requirement that
> you have at least 8.4.25 before updating to 9.0.x because of the RPM
> 4.x format change.
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
warlord@MIT.EDU PGP key available
