From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 4 14:30:16 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDE916A4CF; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 14:30:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz (mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz [66.92.171.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C662543D6A; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 14:30:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from culverk@sweetdreamsracing.biz) Received: by mailhub.sweetdreamsracing.biz (Postfix, from userid 80) id 77542263; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 141.156.69.109 ([141.156.69.109]) by www.sweetdreamsracing.biz (Horde) with HTTP for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:33:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20040804103324.sqsg48s40c48g444@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:33:24 -0400 From: Kenneth Culver To: Scott Long References: <200408040743.i747hs3m000419@pooker.samsco.org> <4110DFC7.8000200@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4110DFC7.8000200@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs cc: re@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3-RELEASE TODO X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:30:16 -0000 Quoting Scott Long : > Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 01:43:54 -0600 (MDT) >> Scott Long wrote: >> >> >>> | Source upgrade | Not done | David Schultz | problematic. The | >>> | incompatibility | | | 5.3 world sources | >>> | | | | must be buildable | >>> | | | | and installable | >>> | | | | from a 5.2.1 | >>> | | | | system. | >> >> >> Should they not also be buildable and installable from a 4.10 or >> 4.11 system >> in order to preserve the -stable upgrade route ? >> > > This would be good, yes, but there are so many other gotchas with that > upgrade path that I don't consider it a show-stopper for it not to work. > Once the 5.2 -> 5.3 path is fixed, then we can focus on 4.x -> 5.3 path. > > Scott Just to let people know, I recently installed from 5.2.1, then updated to -CURRENT via source without a single problem. So what's not working here? Ken