Moe Trin wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.admin, in article
> <caedncqIxLcuoEHenZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Rick Ingham wrote:
>
>
>>Is it practical to run the Fedora Core 4 installer to update a Red Hat
>>6.2 system?
>
>
> I suppose it might work to an extremely limited definition of "work". But
> I'm not sure of that many applications that are even similar.
>
>
>>I realize that's a pretty old release, but I'm not looking forward to
>>manually and meticulously transferring over users, groups,
>>accounts, etc.
>
>
> A lot depends on how the system is arranged. Even at home, I keep all of
> the user directories on a separate partition. A copy of /etc/passwd,
> /etc/group, /etc/shadow (and /etc/gshadow if it exists) will handle the
> UNIX side of things (I don't use Samba). Thus, I just point the installer
> at the old system (and swap) partitions, and don't allow it to mess with
> the partition with /home/ on it. I also have up-to-date backups in case
> anything goes horribly wrong. Once the new system is installed, I log
> in and verify that the two users (root and "me") work correctly, and have
> a usable desktop, then copy the dot files from the "me" directory over to
> the old /home directories, because the "new" installation invariably has
> different desktop applications, and so on. At work, we try to keep a
> "standard" desktop over each update. so the users aren't completely lost.
> But then, at work we have the advantage of test systems we play with before
> subjecting the ordinary users to the trauma of an update.
>
> RH6.2... came out on 27 March, 2000, support ended 31 March 2003. It was
> a great release, and we transitioned most of our users to RH7.2 or 7.3
> in 2002. We still have two or three systems on an isolated network running
> 6.2, with manual updates to such things as the 2.2.26 kernel.
>
> For what it's worth, FC5 is in beta right now, and is "scheduled" for a
> March 15th release.
>
> Old guy
Thanks. I appreciate the info. I think so much is out of date,
possibly including standard file structures/locations and stuff that
everything needs to go. I think I'm better off biting the bullet and
building a new system from scratch and migrating files and users over
afterward.

I noticed this weekend, it's actually version 6.1, so it's even a little
older than what I stated before. We've never updated anything on it.
It's been rock solid since day 1. Last time I checked, a month or two
ago, it had been up solid for well over a year. I don't think we have
another system in 180+ data centers that's been more reliable or up
longer. It's the only Linux system we have. The rest are now all
Solaris and Windows servers. They all get recycled a few times a year
whether they need it or not (monthly for the Windows machines by policy).

Matter of fact, what spawned the inquiry is that I need to update gcc,
and the system has very little space left. So, it's really due for an
update. But everything is still working perfectly and supporting 10
developers on a plain old Dell 450Mhz P3.

Rick.