Leonid Podolny wrote:
Yes, but how do I upgrade FC1 to FC2 test? yum? ftp?
The better question to ask is... which upgrade method needs testing. And the best answer is, whichever upgrade method do you need to have working when you do a final upgrade from FC1 to FC2.
Under RHL, upgrades via anaconda were the only upgrade path that Red Hat was going to even public pretend to make sure is working. yum was a worksforme situation that yum developers and users tested seemingly their own. For Fedora, I'm sure Red Hat's engineers are still focused on getting anaconda working as the priority, but now that yum is inside Core it's a little more difficult for me to tell people not to test the yum upgrade path. So if you can...test both anaconda and yum as upgrade paths.
-jef
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Jef Spaleta wrote:
Leonid Podolny wrote:
Yes, but how do I upgrade FC1 to FC2 test? yum? ftp?
The better question to ask is... which upgrade method needs testing. And the best answer is, whichever upgrade method do you need to have working when you do a final upgrade from FC1 to FC2.
Under RHL, upgrades via anaconda were the only upgrade path that Red Hat was going to even public pretend to make sure is working. yum was a worksforme situation that yum developers and users tested seemingly their own. For Fedora, I'm sure Red Hat's engineers are still focused on getting anaconda working as the priority, but now that yum is inside Core it's a little more difficult for me to tell people not to test the yum upgrade path. So if you can...test both anaconda and yum as upgrade paths.
Is it just me or this whole upgrade thing going to get real complex given the introduction of both selinux and the 2.6 kernel? Is it even possible to upgrade and have selinux active after the upgrade without a large amount of human intervention?
Tom
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 08:55, Tom Diehl wrote:
Is it just me or this whole upgrade thing going to get real complex given the introduction of both selinux and the 2.6 kernel? Is it even possible to upgrade and have selinux active after the upgrade without a large amount of human intervention?
Speaking of SELinux with FC2, I would like to see FC2 ship a 2.4 kernel with enough SELinux support built in so as to not hose up the system for the installed 2.6 kernel(s).
Personally, I do not plan on utilizing such a kernel, except during the test series of releases. However, I think there may be several people who would want to be able to run both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels during a "transition" period of their choosing.
Thoughts?
Lamont R. Peterson (lamont@gurulabs.com) said:
Speaking of SELinux with FC2, I would like to see FC2 ship a 2.4 kernel with enough SELinux support built in so as to not hose up the system for the installed 2.6 kernel(s).
Personally, I do not plan on utilizing such a kernel, except during the test series of releases. However, I think there may be several people who would want to be able to run both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels during a "transition" period of their choosing.
Thoughts?
Really too much work to be worth the effort. Requires backporting all the EA, ACL, and SELinux code.
Bill
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 14:14, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Lamont R. Peterson (lamont@gurulabs.com) said:
Speaking of SELinux with FC2, I would like to see FC2 ship a 2.4 kernel with enough SELinux support built in so as to not hose up the system for the installed 2.6 kernel(s).
Personally, I do not plan on utilizing such a kernel, except during the test series of releases. However, I think there may be several people who would want to be able to run both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels during a "transition" period of their choosing.
Thoughts?
Really too much work to be worth the effort. Requires backporting all the EA, ACL, and SELinux code.
All of that backporting has already been done by NSA & friends.
However...Jef is right, though more articulate that I was about why not to do this. I do not want to detract one bit from 2.6 testing *especially* when it comes to SELinux. With that said...I will stop distracting you all from testing 2.6 kernels :-).
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Diehl wrote:
Is it just me or this whole upgrade thing going to get real complex given the introduction of both selinux and the 2.6 kernel? Is it even possible to upgrade and have selinux active after the upgrade without a large amount of human intervention?
My current thinking is that an upgrade won't enable SELinux. It will lay down the file contexts but not get policy set up to be active. There are just too many things that would have to be done otherwise (including a complete relabeling of your filesystem)
Jeremy
-
Bill Nottingham -
Jef Spaleta -
Jeremy Katz -
Lamont R. Peterson -
Tom Diehl