Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:06:29 +0200 From: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> To: Thomas Mueller <mueller23@insightbb.com> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 9.1 minimal ram requirements Message-ID: <CA%2B7WWSfnXzdHbg8noKvK3ZvOX_30cdKhtaNuH_AUOXdFHfHqUA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2B7WWSeWvLZy%2BQ4wwaUQQsCF86CDUZYewuTCWrvbZ0ZM574%2BwQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <87.5C.07640.028DED05@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> <CA%2B7WWSeWvLZy%2BQ4wwaUQQsCF86CDUZYewuTCWrvbZ0ZM574%2BwQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Thomas Mueller <mueller23@insightbb.com> wrote: >> from Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>: >> >>> In an ideal world, the bits that will almost certainly become FreeBSD 9.1 >>> would not appear on the masters, or any of the mirrors, until the same >>> instant that the release announcement is set to freebsd-announce@FreeBSD.org. >> >>> In practice this doesn't happen. If there is some clever way for that to >>> happen, we haven't found it yet. >> >>> It has happened in the past that even as the release bits were propogating, >>> One Last Big Bug was found and those bits had to be pulled and re-done. It >>> would have looked like you had FreeBSD Release X.Y but you wouldn't have had >>> the final bits that everyone else did. >> >>> I understand your frustration that this process takes days, and in general >>> the frustration with this particular release -- more than you could possibly >>> believe. However, until we figure out the process that would exist in an >>> ideal world, this is what we have, and so if you need something that will be >>> in 9.1, your options at this moment are: build an install from 9-STABLE; find >>> one of the snapshots (and no, I am not the one to ask, sorry); or wait. >> >>> Sorry, but that's the best I can offer right now. >> >>> mcl >> >> So that's why I downloaded-updated source tree using svn, built and installed, >> and uname -a revealed 9.1-PRERELEASE. It seemed strange after 9.1-RELEASE >> became available on FTP servers December 5. Maybe they can do something to >> better document "device ctl" in GENERIC; I kept it because it was there, and >> one is led to think it is needed due to changes in FreeBSD. >> >> >> Tom > > Most likely you took the stable/9 aka 9-STABLE sources. They have > internal name "9.1-PRERELEASE" until the 9.1-RELEASE goes out of the > door. Erm too little coffee this early... I should have written "IF" you are following stable/9 aka 9-STABLE the 9.1-PRERELEASE is what you will see as the internal name until 9.1-RELEASE is released.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2B7WWSfnXzdHbg8noKvK3ZvOX_30cdKhtaNuH_AUOXdFHfHqUA>