Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:18:57 -0400 (EDT) From: doug <doug@safeport.com> To: "JustinL. Boss" <jlboss@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Still not sure about STABLE and CURRENT Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1020412010348.68604B-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <3CB6692F.4060904@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stable - Stable - Stable. Seriously, stuff gets put into CURRENT before it
is ready for prime time much less for a production system. That is the
definition of CURRENT. There are a couple of ways you can track stable:
tag=RELENG_4_5 used only for security and critical fixes
tag=RELENG_4 STABLE
All this is covered in A.7 in the handbook. I update production systems
from common source using the following scheme:
1) run it on workstation(s)
2) if all is okay update name server
3) if all is still okay do the rest.
This has be covered at length if you go through the the archives of
questions and stable lists.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, JustinL. Boss wrote:
> If I have a production server that needs to be up 100% of the time what
> do I use, current or stable. If it is stable then why when I compile my
> kernel with the stable source do it I get errors and with the current
> source everything seems to work well. If you do answer this question
> would you please explain why you answered the way you did. Thanks.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.1020412010348.68604B-100000>