Is it just me or was 6.3 -> 6.4 release kinda slow compared to 6.4 -> 6.5
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.
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.
I design stuff to be resilient to host reboots. Then again we have a lot of kit to play with.
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.
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."
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.
"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.
Sigh.
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.
*. 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 2013-11-21