Sven Mueller wrote: > Ross Boylan wrote on 13/06/2006 06:29: > >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:39:31PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: >> One possibility is that there's actually some upgrade code that needs >> to be written or changed to deal with this. Given the current Debian >> notes about disliking automated scripts (or the people who use them >> :)) and the diversity of installations that may not be possible or >> desirable. But enough info so we can do it on our own would be nice >> :) The minimal info would be a description of how the Debian setup >> differs (or doesn't) from upstream, so we can tell what fraction of >> the upstream advice to take. That's a little challenging, since we >> need to know not only how 2.2 differs from upstream, but also how the >> version we are upgrading from differs from upstream. >> > > Well, I can at least give a quick answer on this: > Neither 2.1 nor 2.2 differ that much from upstream that the upgrade path > is affected. Actually, IIRC, the upgrade from 2.1 to 2.2 is usually just > removing 2.1 and installing 2.2, since both use Berkeley DB 4.2 and the > same config files and config format. A backup before upgrading and some > tests after upgrading is still recommended though. > At least it worked that way for me when I upgraded my own mailserver. > > Regards, > Sven > > > I can confirm this also worked for me. I think the upgrade document was written for the 1.x->2.x transition and is largely full of FUD. It probably needs to be completely rewritten.
Benjamin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
