[indiana-discuss] Re: 3.1) Installation

[Ian Murdock]

Daniel Griffith wrote:
> On 6/13/07, Glynn Foster <Glynn.Foster at sun.com> wrote:
> 
>> "It should not be expected to support an upgrade skipping releases
>> eg. A -> B -> C is supported, A -> C is not supported without an
>> upgrade to B first."
>>
>> and in the end I was convinced that should be removed, especially since I
>> believe Solaris supports upgrades from at least 2 releases behind. But 
>> the fact
>> remains, what is the user expectation vs the potential for supporting 
>> that
>> expectation?
> 
> I would say that someone _would_ have that expectation from a modern
> distribution.

I disagree. While A -> C might work on many distros, the vendors are
usually very careful to say only B -> C is actually supported. So, from
an OpenSolaris/Indiana perspective, A -> B -> C but not A -> C is
entirely reasonable. Now, we may want to make exceptions, e.g. if future
versions of Solaris are just releases on the same train. If, say, C was
the next version of Solaris, Sun may want to support A -> C, and would
put resources into the community to enable that. But, as a general rule,
I don't see anything wrong with the requirement as Glynn originally
wrote as regards OpenSolaris/Indiana. If they're
OpenSolaris/Indiana users, they'll generally be staying up to date.

-ian
-- 
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/

"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige