From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 19 20:33:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79AF16A4CF for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:33:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wingfoot.org (caduceus.wingfoot.org [64.32.179.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08FB43D55 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:33:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ges+lists@wingfoot.org) Received: from localhost (localhost.wingfoot.org [127.0.0.1]) by wingfoot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EEF1F449D for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wingfoot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (wingfoot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55899-01 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [64.32.179.50]) by wingfoot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA291F44B4 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <417579FB.6090805@wingfoot.org> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:32:59 -0400 From: Glenn Sieb Organization: Wingfoot Organization User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Thunderbird/0.8 Mnenhy/0.6.0.104 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at wingfoot.org Subject: Upgrading a 5.1-RELEASE-p10 system... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:33:26 -0000 I'd like to update a server from 5.1-RELEASE-p10 to 5.3-STABLE... What I'm wondering is: Are there any caveats to this upgrade? One of my compadres asked me: > How stable is stable? > > Isn't this the release where they change some value from an int16 to > an int32 and upgrading needs to be done with extra caution? (i.e. > actually go to single user mode even though everyone ignores that > step). Or was that something else? > > Otherwise, I'm all for it. So I just wanted to be sure, so I can plan accordingly... Thanks in advance! Best, Glenn -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759