Opened 23 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
#206 closed defect (wontfix)
Add an "how to upgrade to this release" section
| Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Book | Version: | CVS |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
explain what people need to do in order to upgrade their previous lfs version to the current one.
this doesn't include "How to upgrade from yesterday's cvs to today's cvs", that would be way too much work. But when a change is made to CVS, see how this affects the previous official release and note somewhere (I'd say in Chapter 2 - How to upgrade") what to do.
Change History (9)
comment:1 by , 23 years ago
| Priority: | normal → low |
|---|
comment:2 by , 22 years ago
| Priority: | low → lowest |
|---|
comment:3 by , 22 years ago
| Priority: | lowest → high |
|---|
comment:4 by , 22 years ago
| Priority: | high → lowest |
|---|
comment:5 by , 22 years ago
| Priority: | lowest → normal |
|---|
comment:6 by , 21 years ago
| Priority: | normal → low |
|---|
comment:7 by , 21 years ago
comment:8 by , 21 years ago
I agree with Greg here. Also, IIUC what is being requested, it could become quite complex. If a change was made in the major of, say glibc, would it be doable and how much of it could be addressed in a small addendum in, say, Chapter 2?
Although it may not be reasonable in LFS, IMO, someone might want to attempt a hint or a new sub-project, UFS (Upgrade From Scratch). But I suspect that it might be untenable because of all the possible combos of upgrades and the dependencies between components. Then as Greg mentioned, a package manager may be the best choice. On top of that, new versions of packages sometimes (often?) introduce new dependencies. It gets scarier the more I think of it.
If I completely misunderstood the suggestion, please forgive. I read it a couple times to try and assure I did not.
comment:9 by , 21 years ago
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Agreed with proposals, closing.
I cannot see the point of something like this. It goes against the very essence of what LFS is all about. In case you've forgotten, the "FS" stands for "from scratch" :-) Upgrading should not come into it. The idea of upgrading packages is starting to expand into the realm of package management.
I recommend this bug be closed.