I didn't see anything on the list about this over the holidays and thought it might be of some interest:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2006-December/msg00049.htm...
Lots of discussion around this topic on the fedora-legacy-list.
Jay Leafey wrote:
I didn't see anything on the list about this over the holidays and thought it might be of some interest:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2006-December/msg00049.htm...
Lots of discussion around this topic on the fedora-legacy-list.
I maintain a RHL 7.3 system; what's involved in switching it to CentOS2.1?
I presume I need to replace the /etc/releases file, the yum configuration and (maybe) force-reinstall some upgrades
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, John Summerfield wrote:
I maintain a RHL 7.3 system; what's involved in switching it to CentOS2.1?
My sympathies go out to you. :-)
I presume I need to replace the /etc/releases file, the yum configuration and (maybe) force-reinstall some upgrades
I have never actually tried to do the upgrade but years ago when RHEL (then called 2.1AS) was new, I used a 7.3 system to build the 2.1AS rpms. The biggest problem I had was that some of the 7.3 packages were newer then the 2.1AS packages. IIRC 2.1AS was based off of RHL 7.2.
I suspect that trying to do the upgrade from 7.3 to CentOS2.1, _might_ leave you with some packages not up to date.
Good luck!!
Regards,
Tom Diehl wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, John Summerfield wrote:
I maintain a RHL 7.3 system; what's involved in switching it to CentOS2.1?
My sympathies go out to you. :-)
I presume I need to replace the /etc/releases file, the yum configuration and (maybe) force-reinstall some upgrades
I have never actually tried to do the upgrade but years ago when RHEL (then called 2.1AS) was new, I used a 7.3 system to build the 2.1AS rpms. The biggest problem I had was that some of the 7.3 packages were newer then the 2.1AS packages. IIRC 2.1AS was based off of RHL 7.2.
I suspect that trying to do the upgrade from 7.3 to CentOS2.1, _might_ leave you with some packages not up to date.
Those I can identify at my leisure and apply a little force to. Possibly, some were new in RHL 7.3.
John Summerfield wrote:
I maintain a RHL 7.3 system; what's involved in switching it to CentOS2.1?
My sympathies go out to you. :-)
Actually an RH 7.3 with its last updates is an incredibly solid system. I have a one (firewalled, I don't think I'd trust it on the internet) doing quite a bit of work that hasn't been rebooted in 3+ years - I've forgotten exactly because the uptime counter had a bug and rolls every 497 days.
I presume I need to replace the /etc/releases file, the yum configuration and (maybe) force-reinstall some upgrades
I have never actually tried to do the upgrade but years ago when RHEL (then called 2.1AS) was new, I used a 7.3 system to build the 2.1AS rpms. The biggest problem I had was that some of the 7.3 packages were newer then the 2.1AS packages. IIRC 2.1AS was based off of RHL 7.2.
I suspect that trying to do the upgrade from 7.3 to CentOS2.1, _might_ leave you with some packages not up to date.
Those I can identify at my leisure and apply a little force to. Possibly, some were new in RHL 7.3.
Is there some reason to use Centos 2.x instead of 3.x? I don't see any showstopper issues between everything I have running on 7.3 and Centos 3, although I'd probably install from scratch and back in my old configs instead of expecting an upgrade to work.
Les Mikesell wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
I maintain a RHL 7.3 system; what's involved in switching it to CentOS2.1?
My sympathies go out to you. :-)
Actually an RH 7.3 with its last updates is an incredibly solid system. I have a one (firewalled, I don't think I'd trust it on the internet) doing quite a bit of work that hasn't been rebooted in 3+ years - I've forgotten exactly because the uptime counter had a bug and rolls every 497 days.
Mine _is_ the firewall, and it does have some services pointed at the Internet.
I presume I need to replace the /etc/releases file, the yum configuration and (maybe) force-reinstall some upgrades
I have never actually tried to do the upgrade but years ago when RHEL (then called 2.1AS) was new, I used a 7.3 system to build the 2.1AS rpms. The biggest problem I had was that some of the 7.3 packages were newer then the 2.1AS packages. IIRC 2.1AS was based off of RHL 7.2.
I suspect that trying to do the upgrade from 7.3 to CentOS2.1, _might_ leave you with some packages not up to date.
Those I can identify at my leisure and apply a little force to. Possibly, some were new in RHL 7.3.
Is there some reason to use Centos 2.x instead of 3.x? I don't see any showstopper issues between everything I have running on 7.3 and Centos 3, although I'd probably install from scratch and back in my old configs instead of expecting an upgrade to work.
Centos 2.1 is basically RHL 7.2, It should have a good fit for packages, require _no_ reconfiguration and basically require nothing more than a litte force to upgrade to some older packages and a watchful eye for new orphans. I think without checking the GRUB becomes an orphan, but I can live with that.
John Summerfield wrote:
Is there some reason to use Centos 2.x instead of 3.x? I don't see any showstopper issues between everything I have running on 7.3 and Centos 3, although I'd probably install from scratch and back in my old configs instead of expecting an upgrade to work.
Centos 2.1 is basically RHL 7.2,
That sounds like a good reason to not use it... A lot of things didn't actually work right until 7.3 or some subsequent update mod_perl for example). But maybe the fixes were also backed into the enterprise 2.x updates.
Les Mikesell wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
Is there some reason to use Centos 2.x instead of 3.x? I don't see any showstopper issues between everything I have running on 7.3 and Centos 3, although I'd probably install from scratch and back in my old configs instead of expecting an upgrade to work.
Centos 2.1 is basically RHL 7.2,
That sounds like a good reason to not use it... A lot of things didn't actually work right until 7.3 or some subsequent update mod_perl for example). But maybe the fixes were also backed into the enterprise 2.x updates.
One might reasonably expect that all such problems got fixed in the commercial offering;-) How else would it be worth paying truckloads of dollars for it?
John Summerfield wrote:
Jay Leafey wrote:
I didn't see anything on the list about this over the holidays and thought it might be of some interest:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2006-December/msg00049.htm...
Lots of discussion around this topic on the fedora-legacy-list.
I maintain a RHL 7.3 system; what's involved in switching it to CentOS2.1?
I presume I need to replace the /etc/releases file, the yum configuration and (maybe) force-reinstall some upgrades
Just curious about why you'd choose to do that rather than upgrade to the latest 3.x or 4.x release. Do you have some canned binaries that won't run on a more recent vintage system even with the compatibility libs?
Cheers,
chrism@imntv.com wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
Jay Leafey wrote:
I didn't see anything on the list about this over the holidays and thought it might be of some interest:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2006-December/msg00049.htm...
Lots of discussion around this topic on the fedora-legacy-list.
I maintain a RHL 7.3 system; what's involved in switching it to CentOS2.1?
I presume I need to replace the /etc/releases file, the yum configuration and (maybe) force-reinstall some upgrades
Just curious about why you'd choose to do that rather than upgrade to the latest 3.x or 4.x release. Do you have some canned binaries that won't run on a more recent vintage system even with the compatibility libs?
Because it's probably the easiest transition to something supported. RHAS is more-or-less RHL 7.2, and in my ignorance I think it the likely source for most RHL 7.3 fixes over time. It's the first place I would look. If the transition is likely to work, it should do so with a minimum of fuss and bother - binaries are compatible, for example, and might not even require a reboot (except maybe to change kernels).
An upgrade to a newer release at some point is likely, but not on that physical box.
John Summerfield wrote:
Because it's probably the easiest transition to something supported. RHAS is more-or-less RHL 7.2, and in my ignorance I think it the likely source for most RHL 7.3 fixes over time. It's the first place I would look. If the transition is likely to work, it should do so with a minimum of fuss and bother - binaries are compatible, for example, and might not even require a reboot (except maybe to change kernels).
The tactic I used on 7.3 boxes was to simply use upgrades from CentOS 2.1. Here and there it required manual tweaks, but more or less it worked very nice. All my 7.3 boxes used to run kernels, openssl, apache and more or less everything else important from 2.1. If your servers followed "minimal install" route, this option might work nicely for you. Just subscribe to Red Hat's enterprise watch list, and install updated packages as updates are released. Needs some manual maintenance but at least you don't need to go through full update process.
Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
Because it's probably the easiest transition to something supported. RHAS is more-or-less RHL 7.2, and in my ignorance I think it the likely source for most RHL 7.3 fixes over time. It's the first place I would look. If the transition is likely to work, it should do so with a minimum of fuss and bother - binaries are compatible, for example, and might not even require a reboot (except maybe to change kernels).
The tactic I used on 7.3 boxes was to simply use upgrades from CentOS 2.1. Here and there it required manual tweaks, but more or less it worked very nice. All my 7.3 boxes used to run kernels, openssl, apache and more or less everything else important from 2.1. If your servers followed "minimal install" route, this option might work nicely for you. Just subscribe to Red Hat's enterprise watch list, and install updated packages as updates are released. Needs some manual maintenance but at least you don't need to go through full update process.
Your experience is about what I expected.
Note re watch list; I'm on it, it's a little noisy (covers all releases), but doesn't have all updates. The only way I know to find all updates (short of having a real RHN account) is to watch the source ftp directory, and even that's not always up2date ) discovered.
On Sunday 07 January 2007 11:19, chrism@imntv.com wrote:
Just curious about why you'd choose to do that rather than upgrade to the latest 3.x or 4.x release. Do you have some canned binaries that won't run on a more recent vintage system even with the compatibility libs?
FWIW, I have a few canned binaries in use at one site that require two really archaic libs. One is (wait for it) libc5-based. Yes, libc-5.3.12, last libc5 on RH. Latest libc5 compat was distributed with RHL6.2. The other is linked against glibc 2.0; it is multithreaded and does not work with glibc 2.2 (we have tried; it doesn't work) but it will work with glibc 2.1.
The first app was originally released for Red Hat Linux 4.x (not RHEL4; we have come full circle on versions, no?), and the second was released for RHL 5. The CentOS 2.1 VM (VMware server is great for running legacy stuff on modern hardware that isn't supportable by the old OS) replaces the really old RHL 4.2 PentiumPro 200 server and the old but not quite so old Mandrake 5.3 K6-2 500 server (back when Mandrake was RHL+KDE in effect).
It is a case of 'the app works and we ain't paying for an upgrade we don't need when the app cost x thousand dollars!' Can't blame them at all; the app does work and works well, both pieces. Has for nearly ten years now, with very little downtime. Serves the need (it's a fairly specialized broadcast radio application written on AOLserver 2.x and tied to some odd backend stuff).
But have you tried installing RHL 4.2 lately on anything more modern than a Pentium II? Or RHL 5.2 (Mandrake 5.3) on anything more modern than a P3? VMware server solves the problem very nicely.
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 16:16, Lamar Owen wrote:
FWIW, I have a few canned binaries in use at one site that require two really archaic libs. One is (wait for it) libc5-based. Yes, libc-5.3.12, last libc5 on RH. Latest libc5 compat was distributed with RHL6.2. The other is linked against glibc 2.0; it is multithreaded and does not work with glibc 2.2 (we have tried; it doesn't work) but it will work with glibc 2.1.
If what I remember from the portion of my CS degree that dealt with linkers and loaders, it should be feasible to take a dynamic executable on the system it works on and construct a static binary by pulling it apart and rebuilding it as static (essentially reverse engineering what ld did, and re-running ld with flags to create it as static).
I'm in no way recommending this manual process, as all I remember from this small portion of my life is the agonizing dullness of the material, but there very well may be a tool out there that can do this for you...
On 1/9/07, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Sunday 07 January 2007 11:19, chrism@imntv.com wrote:
Just curious about why you'd choose to do that rather than upgrade to the latest 3.x or 4.x release. Do you have some canned binaries that won't run on a more recent vintage system even with the compatibility libs?
FWIW, I have a few canned binaries in use at one site that require two really archaic libs. One is (wait for it) libc5-based. Yes, libc-5.3.12, last libc5 on RH. Latest libc5 compat was distributed with RHL6.2. The other is linked against glibc 2.0; it is multithreaded and does not work with glibc 2.2 (we have tried; it doesn't work) but it will work with glibc 2.1.
The first app was originally released for Red Hat Linux 4.x (not RHEL4; we have come full circle on versions, no?), and the second was released for RHL 5. The CentOS 2.1 VM (VMware server is great for running legacy stuff on modern hardware that isn't supportable by the old OS) replaces the really old RHL 4.2 PentiumPro 200 server and the old but not quite so old Mandrake 5.3 K6-2 500 server (back when Mandrake was RHL+KDE in effect).
It is a case of 'the app works and we ain't paying for an upgrade we don't need when the app cost x thousand dollars!' Can't blame them at all; the app does work and works well, both pieces. Has for nearly ten years now, with very little downtime. Serves the need (it's a fairly specialized broadcast radio application written on AOLserver 2.x and tied to some odd backend stuff).
But have you tried installing RHL 4.2 lately on anything more modern than a Pentium II? Or RHL 5.2 (Mandrake 5.3) on anything more modern than a P3? VMware server solves the problem very nicely.
Yep. I use it for even DOS stuff
[Hi Lamar.. I was just thinking about the Pisgah ARI this weekend.. wondering how it was going..]
-- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 23:38, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
[Hi Lamar.. I was just thinking about the Pisgah ARI this weekend.. wondering how it was going..]
Hey, smooge. Long time no talk. Lots of cool things going on up here, including my rollout of an Asterisk VoIP system, upgrading the internet connection (to OC3), setting up a multi-terabyte replicated NAS/SAN setup, solar power, DC power for the server room (48VDC telecom style)....
Don't need a job, do you? :-) I could use the help....
-
Aleksandar Milivojevic -
chrism＠imntv.com -
Jay Leafey -
John Summerfield -
Kevan Benson -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Tom Diehl