On 11/15/2011 05:40 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 11/15/2011 04:31 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Vreme: 11/15/2011 03:46 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us piše:
The "preupgrade" is what I've been using the last year, and why I'm now building boxes here with 500M instead of 100M root partitions, figuring that it's what's coming for CentOS, eventually.
+1
I doubt that. The issue isn't the technology but the support issues that can arise from updating systems between releases. Red Hat would have to test all kinds of update scenarios and not only between two releases but they'd also have to take into account systems that have been upgraded several times. I'm pretty sure they will stick to the service migration update path they are using now.
preupgrade is only for migration for full releases, and does sorta kinda work.... It's been in fedora a year or so; I'm *not* looking forward to it hitting RHEL, and so CentOS, but I'm figuring it will, in another year or two.
It might be available as a package but I doubt it will be officially supported by RHEL. "sorta kinda" isn't good enough for an enterprise OS. If business customers begin hosing their systems with these upgrades then Red Hat will be in quite a bit of trouble. Sure upgrading from a sysv init based system to systemd init based system might work well for your LAMP system but what will it do to proprietary clunky software that is running out there? Will your complex Oracle DB setup actually survive that upgrade?
Right now customers have to upgrade by creating new installs that they can test independently of their running infrastructure which makes them ultimately responsible for the "upgrade" (migration really) process.
With an upgrade path between major versions Red Hat will become responsible for that and I'm not sure they are willing to bear that burden for all the possible various installations out there.
Regards, Dennis