> > These were packages shipped with Ubuntu or external packages?
>
> Everything from Ubuntu CD (and its repository.) Never got far enough to
> need external packages. :-)
That is odd. As I've mentioned, I've never seen that happen. Any package
in particular? (And was it the same package each time?)
Now, if you never got the network up it would make sense.
Debian had 5 DVDs of binary content. Ubuntu is based upon Debian, but
they do support a subset of the packages. On the CD it should be mostly
self-contained and mostly Canonical supported packages. It likely
increases some popular Universe packages -- however once you start
going that route the sky is the limit when it comes to dependancies.
(For quite a while the Debian folks have had a "popularity-contest"
package which sends information about the installed packages to the
Debian folks. This is useful not only for cute graphs, as it allows them
to order the packages across the 31 binary CDs in the order that they
are most popular. Since any Debian-derived package can easily use this
package as well as the CD/DVD/BD creation logic that leverages it it
should be no wonder that Ubuntu would use it as well.)
The only place I can see an issue arise is if the network never got up,
and the package manager was left at the default of treating "Recommends"
as "Requires". (It does make things work better for GUI-users -- but
only when you have full access to the repo.) This would mean that things
that are not actually required -- but increase functionality in some
way -- are treated as required. This means that if the network is down
you can have a dependancy issue even if you're only are trying to use
Canonical-supported software. It's a minor configuration change to
prevent "Recommends" from being treated as "Required".
> BTW, I have upgraded many Red Hat systems (from non-RHEL era to RHEL as
> well) many many times. I did run into trouble couple times (mostly
> caused by third party RPMs.) But with so many upgrades been done, the
> number is pretty minor. I have not tried to upgrade on a live system
> (although in theory it's no more different than applying patches for,
> say, kernel or glibc.) So it's definitely doable. But most vendors
> won't recommend doing upgrade for liability reason.
I've heard that it was doable, though I did not know it was doable
pre-Fedora. Still, I contrast "doable" with the fact that network-based
live-upgrades have been the *recommended* upgrade procedure for
DEB-based systems for the past 15+ years.
Cheers,
Steven Black
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment