From owner-freebsd-questions  Thu Jul 31 20:18:48 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA21409
          for questions-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 20:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (cisco-ts7-line1.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.48])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA21400
          for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 20:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost)
          by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA11229;
          Thu, 31 Jul 1997 20:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 20:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug White <dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu>
X-Sender: dwhite@localhost
Reply-To: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu>
To: Server administration <admin@parliament.ge>
cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: difference between 2.2.2 and others
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970731155030.785A-100000@server.parliament.ge>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970731201513.11158J-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Server administration wrote:

> I am the system administrator of the Internet service of the Parliament of 
> Georgia. Our LAN is running under the FreeBSD 2.05 .

Working long and hard....

> I would like to replace the version of operating system by the latest 
> version 
> of FreeBSD. As far as I understand the best choice is 
> the FreeBSD2.2.2-RELEASE. Is my choice correct?

Well, 2.2.2 isn't as clean as we'd (I'd?) like it to be.  2.2.1 might be a
better bet (and less of a shock).   Considering how far behind you are, it
may be a better bet to shoot for 2.1.7 first, then up to 2.2.1.  I believe
some major changes came through in 2.1.0 that may affect your filesystems;
you may need to reinstall from scratch. (It may not be a bad idea for such
an old system.)

> Could you please send me an information concerning  the difference  between 
> the basic administrative files.

I think the big one was the addition of /etc/sysconfig as a systemwide
configuration file.  Everything else was pretty static.  (In 2.2.2 this
became /etc/rc.conf.)  

It's been so long since I ran 2.0.5 (I have the CD still!) I don't
remember all the little changes.

Doug White                              | University of Oregon  
Internet:  dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu    | Residence Networking Assistant
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite    | Computer Science Major
Spam routed to /dev/null by Procmail    | Death to Cyberpromo