[ATrpms-users] Re: FC3 to FC4 upgrade

[George Galt]

Axel:

I hope I'm not being incredibly dense, but would the easiest course at
this point be to use rpm to install the FC4 version of either
atrpms-package-config or medley-package-config and then do an apt-get
update && apt-get dist-upgrade?

Thanks,

George

On 6/18/05, George Galt <george.galt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Axel:
> 
> OK, thanks.  I'll wait on the FC4 packages.  And thanks for all of
> your hard work on the packages and answering questions.
> 
> So just to be clear, I'm going to change all of the lines in my
> sources.list file that say something like "/fedora/3/i386" to
> "fedora/4/i386".  I'm amazed that it is that simple.  I guess I just
> expected it to be harder!!!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> George
> 
> On 6/18/05, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 12:17:24PM -0400, George Galt wrote:
> > > Axel:
> > >
> > > I've been watching this thread for a few days, and, perhaps I'm overly
> > > thick, but could you describe the steps needed to update using apt
> > > from FC3 to FC4?  I've reviewed the description given at
> > > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq, but unfortunately,
> > > attempting to install the needed package
> > > (fedora-release-4-2.noarch.rpm) conflicts with my previous install of
> > > your configuration files (and attempting to remove them causes apt to
> > > want to remove itself and a bunch of other stuff!!).
> >
> > Step 0) Wait for FC4 packages for ATrpms to appear on the repo ;)
> >
> > You can't upgrade to something that does not exist yet. If you do so
> > right now, you will find that apt will hold back a couple of packages,
> > which is the proper thing to do.
> >
> > > Do I simply apt-get dist-upgrade?  If so, do I need to change the
> > > distribution definition in the sources file -- and is it really that
> > > simple?
> >
> > Yes, it is that simple this time. Even simply manually upgrading
> > atrpms-package-config would be enough. But you need to wait until poor
> > ATrpms' buildsystem completes the builds and recreates the repos.
> >
> > > I apologize for being particularly dense here, but I just can't seem
> > > to figure it out.  I'm sure it's something simple that I'm missing.
> > >
> > > I appreciate your help and all of the hard work you do on maintaining
> > > your site and answering questions.
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > > On 6/17/05, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 09:53:09PM -0400, Preet Khalsa wrote:
> > > > > > > Well I tried to do an upgrade with apt-get and failed miserably.  Lucky
> > > > > > > I am back to FC3.  The problem is the splitting off of libraries for
> > > > > > > freetype, howl etc.  The dist-upgrade does not allow me to continue
> > > > > > > because the new packages come complete and conflict with Axel's.  Since
> > > > > > > have no obsoletes, I am stuck.  Is there a secret option to help me
> > > > > > > out?  Would yum be better?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, but apt-get upgrade would already upgrade 90% of your system. You
> > > > > > need to dist-upgrade with ATrpms for FC4 present.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did use dist-upgrade.  It complains about all the split off libraries.
> > > > > The new packages include them and do not obsolete the split off ones.
> > > > > So the libraries conflict with atrpms extra packages for the libs.  I
> > > > > need a solution to get around this.  If go nuts and rpm -e --nodeps
> > > > > them, the system is disables and apt-get does not work.  This I speak
> > > > > from experience.  The only solution I can think of is for atrpms to have
> > > > > equivalent packages again with the libraries separate.  But they do not
> > > > > seem to be there.  Perhaps my problem is that I am premature and that
> > > > > you are still building them.  I always use at-testing and I see that
> > > > > howl is only a specfile right now.  That is one of the packages
> > > > > affected.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I am premature, my apologies.  At least this discussion will stop
> > > > > others.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the packages for FC4 were all for prereleased versions, so they
> > > > have all been removed and are being rebuilt.
> > > >
> > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=545
> > > >
> > > > > > > As an aside, is there no atrpms-package-config for FC4?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I'll ready one tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.  That would be nice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Always a pleasure dealing with you Axel.
> > > > >
> > > > > Preet
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > atrpms-users mailing list
> > > > > atrpms-users at atrpms.net
> > > > > http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > atrpms-users mailing list
> > > atrpms-users at atrpms.net
> > > http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
> >
> > --
> > Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
> >
> >
> >
>