[sf-lug] SF-LUG & BALUG: System OS upgrades *soon*(?) - volunteer(s)?

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Jan 23 18:51:25 PST 2012

Quoting Brian Morris (cymraegish at gmail.com):

> IIRC some major installations choose to use the proper names.

You seem to be ignoring upthread context, which is Debian.

> Even with Debian tho there are always technical adjustments (new features,
> even dropped packages).

The universe has death and taxes in it, too.  ;->

Yes, when Web servers running package apache (1.3.x) followed the stable
track from 4.0/etch to 5.0/lenny, there were no more updates available
to the apache (1.3.x) packages.  OH NOEZ!  

Administrators who'd been hiding under rocks for about five years might
have missed the need to bear down and create a corresponding conffile
setup for the apache2 packages.  They might find that... EEK!  Their
Apache 1.3 setups continued to run normally.  Um, I'm sorry, I'm sure
there was an emergency of epic proportions in there somewhere.  I wonder
where I mislaid it?

> There is a desire for planned rather than forced upgrades.

Oh, you mean a 'planned upgrade' like the one that is the principal
responsibility of each Debian Release Manager and that they've had a
superb record of bringing off repeatedly with zero downtime, as opposed
to a 'forced upgrade' like the necessarily messy and fragile one, _with_
downtime, that SF-LUG and BALUG's machine is now going to have to do?

Those sorts of upgrades?

> Also one may /should  be able to upgrade less often.

Yeah, have fun with oldstable.  Mail us an illuminated manuscript when
you have a moment.

More information about the sf-lug mailing list