Experience feedback on upgrading from TC6 to TC8

[yacc]

Hello,

As it may provide help to anybody who would like to do the same, here is a feedback on upgrading my TC installation (on USB stick) from TC6 to TC8.

The first step (moving the core) was quite simple : download of a TC8 iso, building a bootable USB stick in order to access core files, then replacing /boot/core.tgz and /boot/vmlinux files from TC8 USB stick to my (TC6) USB stick, rebooting my USB stick and everything was working fine.

Problems arose when I launched the Apps/Maintenance feature to check for extensions upgrades : it seems that all my extensions were to be upgraded, so I did it.

Unfortunately, it seems that if this upgrade feature detects and reload correctly the to-be-upgraded extensions , it forget to download new TC8 dependancies that come with the upgraded extensions. This is the case in particular for the Xorg system with a new TC8 (or TC7?) libXorg2.tcz, so after extensions upgrade, my USB stick boot stopped at prompt level.

After adding the bootcode "showall", and taking a picture  of the boot screen (impossible to pause the boot using CTRL-Q), I've been able to figure out which new extensions were missing (are the boot messages saved somewhere?)

To get the missing extensions, I've boot the TC8 USB stick (a live Core-Plus for WiFi feature), and using the Apps application, loaded missing extensions (on a live USB, extensions are loaded by default in /tmp/tce/optional), moved them to my USB stick, and updated onboot.lst file.

And my  USB stick now fully at TC8 level booted then correctly again.

So quite simple when you know how to do, but it took me some time to understand the real issue (I thought that TC8 introduced a change in Xorg as startx returned "Failed for waitforX").

Best regards

[curaga]

Yeah, the direct upgrade doesn't fetch new dependencies, the menu has a separate step for that ("check for missing dependencies" IIRC). That can also be done from the command line, from memory "tce-audit builddb; tce-audit fetchmissing".

I agree it's somewhat unintuitive. I think it was done that way so that any manually edited .dep files would not be overwritten without the user knowing.