xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Upgrading RH7.1 XFS 1.0.1 to XFS 1.0.2

To: Matteo Centonza <matteo@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Upgrading RH7.1 XFS 1.0.1 to XFS 1.0.2
From: Harri Haataja <harri.haataja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 18:28:18 +0200
Cc: werner maes <werner.maes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111191614001.4591-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from matteo@xxxxxx on Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:17:10PM +0100
Mail-followup-to: Matteo Centonza <matteo@xxxxxx>, werner maes <werner.maes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011119153233.00a69de0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111191614001.4591-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:17:10PM +0100, Matteo Centonza wrote:
> > So do I need to recompile the RH 7.2 package on RH 7.1?
> 
> No, there's a suitable filesystem-2.1.6-2 rpm in RH rawhide:
> 
> http://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=filesystem

ISTR there being at least one version (which I've used) that depends on
a newer setup package which has some different users and groups. They
did some improvements to the default reserved uids in 7.2, I think.

I suppose the upgrade version doesn't have such a dependency and I doubt
they would have made drastic changes to the basic filesystem. rpm -qlv
would tell what the new one contains if you want to be sure.

-- 
The Informix beast isn't a small, cute St Bernard like SMTP. It's a
monster of a black dragon, breathing smoke and ESQL C at anyone who
dares to approach it.
        -- Tales from the TCP towers

Attachment: pgpvEDjhF81Fx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>