CentOS 6.5 Released
centosblog.com
centosblog.com
Worked like a charm.
Your upgrade process is often a reflection of your installation process: if you were uncareful and skipped over details, such things have a tendency to bite you in the rear. E.g.: Don't mix repositories offering the same software but with different configurations, like clamav, or you will have a bad time. This was one of my stumbling blocks, but I learned from it.
When upgrading major versions eg from 5.x to 6.x, I agree that a reinstall is probably more apt.
- It's not talking about what they think it's talking about. 6.4 to 6.5 is a minor, or point release, and is fully expected to be updated using yum.
- Even if it was a problem, that would be a problem mostly of the package format (rpm vs deb) and what it supports or how they were created by the maintainers, not the tools that take the packages and use them to determine dependencies and apply the updates.
- The package formats are similar enough in capabilities that the package managers can actually handle repos of the other packages. You can get apt on CentOS, and yum on debian based systems, and use them on the native packages with a little work.
RHEL really is a best of class distro, and just because they've focused less on swizzy-look-cool features doesn't mean they've been resting on their laurels. They've invested a lot in making sure the distro works well in their entire ecosystem of products, and just plain works without too many problems. In a way, they are the Microsoft of lniux distributions, in that they have a solution for just about everything, and it just works most the time. In a way, it's the best of both worlds.
I see what you did there.
TRIM Support in mdadm: The mdadm tool now supports the TRIM commands for RAID0, RAID1, RAID10 and RAID5.
Full Support of fsfreeze: The fsfreeze tool is fully supported in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.5. The fsfreeze command halts access to a file system on a disk. fsfreeze is designed to be used with hardware RAID devices, assisting in the creation of volume snapshots. For more details on the fsfreeze utility, refer to the fsfreeze(8) man page.
Source: https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_E...
Deleted comment
Any ideas?
CentOS Devel archives worth a look sometimes as is Karanbir Singh's blog.
I use CentOS stock desktop on a recycled laptop as a writing machine. Just the Fluendo mp3 decoder, Adobe Flash installed from RPM and the ntfs-3g package from RPMFusion downloaded and installed so I can read NTFS external hard drives. It all just works on the X200s, including hard drive encryption as I get email on this machine and don't want data accessed if it gets stolen or lost.
The 6.5 update just came through as a regular update although much larger than usual (350Mb of download) this morning UK time. All solid, no problems. I always find it amusing that Linux based OSes can run an upgrade like this while I carry on typing in homework questions!
(I manage a handful of CentOS boxen and have found this out the hard way.)
Between 6.x and 7.0 is another story and I wouldn't do this with any distro. Risk is too high. Just build new kit, test it then migrate services and data over piecemeal.
Debian screwing up dovecot configuration terribly between 6 and 7 is a fine example of why you shouldn't do this.
I've managed about 60 CentOS/RHEL machines, 30+ Debian machines, 20 FreeBSD machines and 200 Solaris machines and I've never done a major release in place upgrade.
I design stuff to be resilient to host reboots. Then again we have a lot of kit to play with.
DO turn SELinux off on their kernels and take ages to update so I can't really take them seriously for production to be honest. Also they appear to be VC backed which is usually a sign of shortcuts taking priority over proper due diligence.
Then again for $5/month, pay peanuts, get monkeys. Not bad monkeys for the money. I've paid 3x the amount and got worse monkeys.
The 6.3 -> 6.4 and 6.4 -> 6.5 updates arrived simply as software updates using the usual process just involving the download 340Mb of files. I gather the 6.x designation relates to updating the installer and packages available on the release DVDs
I think you are referring to 5 to 6 and ultimately 6 to 7. Major versions.
Nowhere does anyone advise to reinstall. Can you quote your source please.
managing software with yum is just plainly broken compared to apt.
You're trolling. How is it broken?
Multilib problems
Trolling again. Which problems?
For example I didn't find the way to compile qtlandcarte
Ah okay. So you're asking for help. Well, what was the problem?
Apt I must say is ages ahead yum.
Trolling again. Say how it is ages ahead.
I guess other replies cleared that for you.
>managing software with yum is just plainly broken compared to apt.
>You're trolling. How is it broken?
for example installing something which has certain library requirement, updates repo provides new library version but not this package (--skip-missing? please), other repos (not exactly yum fault) providing same versions of software but with different prefix in name causes problems with overlaping locations of files etc
>Multilib problems
>Trolling again. Which problems?
I remember having hard time with Virtualbox and qt 64 and i686 in 6.4
>For example I didn't find the way to compile qtlandcarte
>Ah okay. So you're asking for help. Well, what was the problem?
No, it was example. Problem was, with lower versions of libraries or none at all (gdal, Proj4), which leads to using "other repos" which ends with see above.
>Apt I must say is ages ahead yum.
>Trolling again. Say how it is ages ahead.
Well literally apt 1998 yum ~2003, but also try to package perl modules with each for concurrent two different versions of perl, or do the same with python, and apt/deb saves you a lot of time.
This above as I stated in my first post is mostly valid for desktop/dev usage, for server use I'm very happy with RHEL/CentOS.
Sigh.
"Red Hat strongly recommends fresh installations when upgrading from one major version to another" -- https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_E...
From the big fat warning box at the top of the page:
> Red Hat does not support in-place upgrades between any major versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. A major version is denoted by a whole number version change. For example, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.5 are both major versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Edited to add: per the release notes, emphasis mine: "Similar to the practice of the upstream vendor, there is no supported path to 'upgrade' an installation of a prior major CentOS release (presently CentOS 5) to a new major release."
*. RHEL 6.0 to CentOS 6.0: 242 Days
*. RHEL 6.1 to CentOS 6.1: 204 Days
*. RHEL 6.2 to CentOS 6.2: 14 Days
*. RHEL 6.3 to CentOS 6.3: 18 Days
*. RHEL 6.4 to CentOS 6.4: 15 Days
*. RHEL 6.5 to CentOS 6.5: 10 Days * 6.1 2011-05-19
* 6.2 2011-12-06
* 6.3 2012-06-20
* 6.4 2013-02-21
* 6.5 2013-11-21Every change becomes a major hassle.
Point proven by the fact that no one thinks upgrading from 6.4 to 6.5 is even an option if you don't do a clean install it's your own fault if stuff wont work.
OMG, who tells you this? They should not be allowed anywhere near a computer. Do yourself a favour and stop listening to them. Seriously.
Actually one of RHEL's strong points is that you can easily do updates between minor versions and it will still work, even after 10 years.
Yes, nothing is perfect and every now and then shit happens, but quality wise RHEL (CentOS too!) is still in a class of its own. You have a problem? Search the interwebz, get on the forums, on the mailing lists, you're not alone.
Major hassle!