Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-xfer.netaxs.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: techie@kzsu.Stanford.EDU (Bob Vaughan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Why upgrades are not simpler?
Date: 8 Jan 1997 06:50:59 -0800
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <5b0c8j$26j@kzsu.Stanford.EDU>
References: <5akno1$ras$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <5amvjp$q75@uriah.heep.sax.de> <5as228$37j@uuneo.neosoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kzsu.stanford.edu
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:33808
In article <5as228$37j@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
Conrad Sabatier <conrads@neosoft.com> wrote:
>In article <5amvjp$q75@uriah.heep.sax.de>,
> j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) writes:
>> reyes01@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it that upgrading a FreeBSD system can't be done without the user
>>> losing configurations or files? Will it always be like this?
>>
>> It's because nobody ever completed a more complete and better upgrade
>> structure.
>>
>> Consider this an official ``job offer'' if you like. :)
>
>Are there any archives of any discussions/ideas concerning this subject?
>
>On the surface, it seems like it should be a fairly straightforward
>procedure, but I suspect there are some hidden pitfalls that I'm not
>considering.
>
>Why not simply upgrade binaries and sources *only*, leaving /etc, /var,
>/home, /dev untouched? After all, we *are* talking about an upgrade, not
>a brand new install, so it should be safe to assume that a reasonable
>configuration already exists.
>
>--
>Conrad Sabatier |
>conrads@neosoft.com | Eschew obfuscation.
>http://www.neosoft.com/~conrads |
>
The problem that I have seen (upgrading to 2.1.6), was that the upgrade
script would "backup" /etc to /usr/tmp/etc.. the problem is that it's
idea of "backup" is to copy -most- of the files from /etc, while setting
some others to the distribution defaults.. (/etc/remote, /etc/gettytab are
the ones that I recall offhand..) so the "backup" is really a corrupt
"semi-backup".
--
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | techie@w6yx.stanford.edu | kc6sxc@w6yx.ampr.org
| techie@tantivy.net | KC6SXC@W6YX.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM
| P.O. Box 9792, Stanford, Ca 94309-9792
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --