[CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

Wed May 30 16:07:31 UTC 2012
Max Pyziur <pyz at brama.com>

> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz at brama.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Since this is a server environment, there are about 700-800 packages,
> not the 3000
>>> that sit on desktop machine.
>> If it is a server environment, you should be paying attention to the
>> supported life of the distribution.  FC2 is long, long past its 'use
>> by' date.
> Very much so. Almost anywhere I've ever worked, no management would
> *allow* a production server that was this far out of date.
> Further, if it were up to me, there's *no* way I'd allow fedora in a
> production environment. It's a development line; I'd expect management to
> demand either RHEL or CentOS, which are stable production-quality lines.
> They don't have the latestgreatestmostwonderfulness... but when that moves
> into these distros, they're not going to break when you look at them
> wrong.

To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.

Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2 machine
used in a production environment, and no effort was made to create that

>> Just get the package list from the working C5 box and feed it to
>> kickstart or to yum after a minimal install.
>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>>> proceed sequentially.
> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?

Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
my point in starting this thread.

pyz at brama.com

>> No,  it makes sense to upgrade things that were designed and tested as
>> upgrades, and to re-install things that weren't.  You might, with a
>> lot of work and care, make the upgrade operational, but the result
>> will be a one-of-a-kind beast that doesn't belong in a production
>> environment.
> I agree. If someone handed me a mess like that, I'd be building a new
> production server, test it, and get that out of production as fast as I
> possibly could. If you, or whoever, got another job, or were hit by a car
> tomorrow, whoever had to pick it up would be SOL, and it'd probably crash
> before they figured out what had been done. It would take you as much time
> to document as to
>      a) build a new, stable CentOS 5 or 6 box
>      b) install everything required on it
>      c) recompile anything in-house that needed to be rebuilt
>      d) test it all, and put it into production,
> and I guarantee that you'd miss documenting something vital.
>>> But how much difference is there from FC2 to
>>> FC6/CentOS 5.*?
> A *lot*.
> <snip>
>          mark
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos