[nflug] Hacking files in /etc/yum.repos.d

[Jesse Jarzynka]

default wrote:
> Ladies (if there are any) and Gentlemen:
>
> I'm running FC3 on my laptop, and have in my intentions to upgrade 
> eventually to FC5.  The FC5 DVD I burned apparently has an unreadable 
> file and I cannot proceed in upgrading.  The file in question, an XML 
> file whose name I don't recall at the moment, indeed cannot be read 
> from the DVD, nor even from the ISO when mounted.  Googling reveals 
> this as a problem, but doesn't seem to propose a solution.  There's 
> some talk about padding the DVD, but this is currently beyond my 
> expertise in burning optical discs.  Anyway, it follows, at least in 
> my mind, that the file won't burn to be readable if it isn't readable 
> from the ISO, so that effort would be futile.
>
> Left with this situation, I have given up upgrading by using the DVD 
> but am open to other means, however unorthodox.  This leads me to my 
> recent discovery of the files in /etc/yum.repos.d.  All 4 files 
> contain a variable called $releasever.  This got my noggin cranking, 
> so I set out to change that variable from (apparently) 3.  I tried the 
> command
>     set releasever=4
> but that didn't seem to work when I ran yum.  Then I got the bright 
> idea to replace all references to $releasever to 4 (baby steps) in 
> each file, *after backing up the files*.  I am currently running yum 
> and it seems to be doing its thing.  I hope I will avoid RPM hell.
>
> This method is a minor epiphany (no pun intended with one of the 
> packages I'm trying to upgrade), since my mentality is, "To upgrade an 
> OS, you need a whole set of CDs/DVDs.  I thought of a wacky idea that 
> wasn't common knowledge to me, and it seems to be working.  However, I 
> feel like I'm exploring unchartered territory, and can use some 
> insight into what I have done, so I have a few questions:
> 1. Are there any possible or probable repercussions to doing this?
>    a. What is the potential to hosing the system, beside the 
> aforementioned RPM hell, especially considering that some RPMs I've 
> installed are newer than what came with FC4?  Additionally, will I 
> have a bona fide FCx system if I replace $releasever with x in the 
> applicable files, then run yum?
>    b.  Is Red Hat OK with me doing this my way?  Am I taxing bandwidth 
> of the yum repositories unfairly or unethically?  Are there any other 
> considerations I should be on to?
> 2. If my way be valid, why (other than the convenience of speed, 
> considering downloading an ISO and burning a disc from it is faster 
> than downloading from a yum depository) would one want to burn a disc?
> 3. Does anyone see any advantage to doing it my way, in terms of a 
> more thorough or elsewise better upgrade?
>
> I thank in advance everyone who replies.  Additionally, I thank all 
> contributors to the NFLUG mailing list for helping me to think outside 
> the box.
> _______________________________________________
> nflug mailing list
> nflug at nflug.org
> http://www.nflug.org/mailman/listinfo/nflug
>

This isn't a new idea, but I don't think it's a very good one at all. 
I've seen plenty of occasions where people have upgraded Ubuntu fairly 
easily one release at a time, and even that had some snags. Going from 
FC3 to FC5 is just asking for trouble. I'm pretty positive it won't work 
at all. If you want a copy of FC5, stop by and I'll burn you a copy. 
Don't waste your time.

-- 
Jesse Jarzynka
Cyber Source
http://www.jessejoe.com/
http://www.thecybersource.com/
_______________________________________________
nflug mailing list
nflug at nflug.org
http://www.nflug.org/mailman/listinfo/nflug