[TAG] Fw: Upgrading from RHEL v3 to v5

[Thomas Adam]

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:42:05 -0500
From: Jesse Fitzgerald <jesse at nursingnet.com>
To: TAG <tag at lists.linuxgazette.net>
To: Thomas Adam <thomas.adam22 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [TAG] Upgrading from RHEL v3 to v5


Thomas,

Thanks for  the advice. I figured as much. I think I'm gonna just stick
with v3 for now since Red Hat is gonna support it for a few more years,
although I cant seem to it's end-of-life date.

Thanks again,

Jesse :)

Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:41:07 -0500
> Jesse Fitzgerald <jesse at nursingnet.com> wrote:
> 
>> I want to upgrade to version 5.0. I?m a bit anxious though. I only
>> have a few users, but have spent a lot of time getting everything
>> running well on my box. My question: If I install Red Hat Enterprise
>> V5 using the upgrade option via the anaconda installer, will I loose
>> any of my data or applications? I know that doing a clean wipe and
>> reinstall is the BEST solution, but if possible I would like to
>> upgrade.
> 
> Actually, it's not the best solution at all.  In doing that you will
> invariably wipe out all manner of settings -- some of which you might
> not have realised to backup at all (hint:  some application use /var
> as a dumping ground which tends to trick a number of people when they
> backup their configurations in an attempt to do a window-esque style
> of ""upgrading""; wholly wrong, IMO).
> 
> Upgrading will replace binaries in /usr, yes.  That's a premise you
> except when you upgrade, of course.  If you have custom binaries you
> yourself have compiled from source which install to /usr then you
> might be able to tell your package manager (rpm in this case) not to
> touch certain files -- you certainly can with apt under Debian for
> instance, but it's been some time since I last an RPM system with any
> great vigour.
> 
>> Here is what I?m specifically concerned about loosing:
>> Apache, MySql, PHP, Qmail, Vpopmail, and various other small
>> applications (Webalizer, etc?). All of the above have been compiled
>> from source. I?m also concerned about stuff in /usr /usr/home /etc
>> and /var being overwritten.
> 
> Well, as I mentioned above, stuff in /usr and /var will get
> overwritten. Full-stop.  This is why you upgrade, after all.  The
> best solution I can offer you is to backup the configuration files
> for all of the programs you've listed above, reinstall the compiled
> applications from source, and just have done with it.
> 
> This ought not to be much of an option though, assuming the compiled
> applications you yourself have installed haven't overwritten files
> which you might have previously installed via rpm.  I.e., if you have
> apache installed then it will overwrite your custom package, and
> likewise, if any of the dependencies in the upgrade cause apache to
> be installed that too will overwrite your files.
> 
> This is where the advantage of installing to /usr/local (typically the
> default with PREFIX= or --prefix= depending on whether you use make
> or./configure respectively) comes in handy.  It's policy for packages
> not to install files there.  You may of course already
> meant /usr/local for your compiled applications; it's non-obvious
> from your descriptions, so I am taking you verbatim.
> 
> Oh, and as a parting comment, one of the reasons why people split /usr
> and /home onto separate partitions is also to make things like
> upgrading work easier -- i.e., not mounting /home is often beneficial
> so that nothing really can be deleted or overwritten, etc.  (A poor
> example in this case, but the essence of it applies.)
> 
> -- Thomas Adam
> 
> !DSPAM:4607b5f217062058919011!
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Jesse Fitzgerald
GnuPG Key 0x99EEDF02
Download @ http://pgp.mit.edu/