Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!rata.vuw.ac.nz!ellis From: ellis@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Ellis) Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix Subject: Re: Ultrix 4.1! Message-ID: <1990Nov11.225919.13038@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Date: 11 Nov 90 22:59:19 GMT References: <3738@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <3739@vela.acs.oakland.edu> Sender: news@comp.vuw.ac.nz (News Admin) Reply-To: ellis@rata.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Ellis) Organization: Victoria University (CSC) Lines: 25 Nntp-Posting-Host: rata.vuw.ac.nz In article , pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: |> In general I think that upgrades are far more risky (difficult to get |> right) than full reinstallations, and take about the same time, for any |> Unix version. If the upgrade is simply a "list" of the files that have changed, I could live with that. BUT I would want to know precisely which files have been changed, (and would be overwritten) in advance. I would for example be quite happy with a tar file that I could load into a seperate directory somewhere, and manually move the relevant files across. I would be quite happy with some upgrade software subsets - as long as I knew in advance which files were going to be overwritten. I believe that I could apply an upgrade supplied in this fashion much more quickly than installing and configuring a new release. Just my humble opinion... Brian Ellis Computing Services Centre Domain: ellis@rata.vuw.ac.nz Victoria University of Wellington Bang paths... grrrr!!!!! P.O Box 600, New Zealand. What! - no cute .sig ???