gabbman Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Should I just download the 2 iso's and clean install, or can I edit my sources list and urpmi the updates to 9.2. ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 if you want 9.2 you're better off getting the iso's>clean install. If you just want to be up to date and like the element of suprise urpmi can give you, use it :lol: . Niether of the above will get you ML-10-cooker though. That's another urpmi upgrade, of course you can do that and skip 9.2, but again, be ready and willing to have a useless sys that needs a lot of repair from cli. Urpmi has improved a lot but it's still not apt, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Scrimpshire Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 That's how I went from 9.1 to 9.2. I started out changing my sources to the Cooker sources, when 9.2 was RC2, then when the download came out, I changed my sources again to the CDs and did it again. There's a topic somewhere here about it, called "Upgrading without reinstalling" or something like that. Do a search for it. I have had no problems with 9.2's urpmi. MandrakeUpdate, which uses grpmi, though, is a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kuchwas Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Should I just download the 2 iso's and clean install, or can I edit my sources list and urpmi the updates to 9.2. ?? Did you mean this link that I posted in the Happy 2004 thread last night? A 2 CD Mandrake 10.0 preview: http://www.mandrakeclub.com/article.php?si...mode=nocomments Bittorrent link available at above url. It was made New Years Eve, Paris time and is an up-to-date Cooker snapshot of selected programs. Follow bvc's advice. Play with it as it is on a partition, or add cooker urpmi sources and keep chugging (and being ambushed :o ) by cooker. I did a urpmi from 9.1 to 9.2 from cooker mirrors as soon as they froze 9.2 cooker. Then I decided to keep with cooker and just did a urpmi update from 9.2, so it can be done. It should work either way EVERYONE This is the opportunity to have input in 10.0! The more who test and report, the better the final release will be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabbman Posted January 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Did you mean this link that I posted in the Happy 2004 thread last night? Yes, I have 9.2 installed and having the 'URGE' to tweak, I wondered if the clean install iso method was better then the change sources, urpmi my 9.2 method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kuchwas Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 (edited) Did you mean this link that I posted in the Happy 2004 thread last night? Yes, I have 9.2 installed and having the 'URGE' to tweak, I wondered if the clean install iso method was better then the change sources, urpmi my 9.2 method. Flip a coin?? I think it is just personal preference, based on what has happened in the past, i.e., worked no problem / burned you bad... :unsure: I always use urpmi for each upgrade, never had ISO upgrade success with Mandrake (did work with RH 4.2 - 8.0 then RH9 chomped me). And I hate new installs and reconfigure. I do backup everything to CD before I start any procedure! Edited January 1, 2004 by kuchwas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabbman Posted January 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Ok thanks, backup is not a problem, this is just a 'test' box. Are the cooker rpms linked here in the downloads up to date? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Are the cooker rpms linked here in the downloads up to date? no, we're not in sync anymore.....have to get on to anon about that when he returns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Scrimpshire Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 I just tried to upgrade using urpmi and it caused all kinds of troubles. I'm about to burn the disks and do a clean install (keeping my /home directory, of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Doing a release candidate is different than a cooker snapshot. Pre-beta-10 has odd problems. Urpmi is not working correctly. Also, the kernel-sources were only available on the french mirrors over the weekend. So, just sourcing a cooker mirror won't work either! Install the iso's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illogic-al Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 i've noticed that not all coooker mirrors are created equal and some need aren't always as update as they should be causing problems w/ urpmi. you're best bet. ISO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kuchwas Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 (edited) i've noticed that not all coooker mirrors are created equal and some need aren't always as update as they should be causing problems w/ urpmi. you're best bet. ISO Well, it was worse than that! :o urpmi had a build error with perl dependencies that removed rpmdrake. It took 4 builds, but is fixed now. :unsure: There is known problem with mirror structure and propagation that is being resolved. We are testing a new mirror with the above changes on Cooker. Some of the situations got more problematic due to the 2 week Holidays, since very few updates were being built nor bugs squashed. (This morning there were 129 new builds waiting for me to urpmi!) That is why Cooker exists, to work through these messes, If you cannot fix your machine from CLI, or if you cannot accept the fact that one function or another will be borked more often than it works, then be warned! :D I know most of you can deal with it, but Cooker is not for the impatient. B) Edited January 5, 2004 by kuchwas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Cooker is not for the impatient. B) I disagree, sorta ;). The last thing in the world I am is patient and I have cooker. I just don't run cooker. Yes there's a diff for those that don't know. There's pkgs I do not update til I have to. Urpmi/rpm stuff is #1 on this list. Drak-stuff, initscripts and others I only upgrade when required as well. I do not submit bug reports. I do not 'run' cooker. I have it. See the diff? Therefore I can have patience WITH the understanding that the time may come when my patience will really be tested. Like kuchwas said.....if you can't fix and run your sys from the cli....stay away or be willing to start over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kuchwas Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 I meant if you are actively using Cooker as intended, that is, download all updates, test and report what is fixed, what needs attention still, and what is still / newly broken. :lol: :D :P :o :unsure: I did hold up for a couple days on perl, gcc, and xfree util I saw the major reports come through. And I make backup CDs with partion image so I can get back to where I was in 30 minutes or so..... There is a difference between being adventurous and dumb. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabbman Posted January 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 I've tried both, clean install of the 2 Cooker CD's and the 9.2 upgrade. Bear in mind it's still vertually alpha-beta, it's got a lot of nice features in the kde3.2 side, but a lot is still lacking for the day to day user without a bunch o tweaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.