Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:34:16 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: Mark Weinem <mark.weinem@uni-duisburg.de>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: From 4.7 to 4.8 Message-ID: <200304081134.16770.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <20030408000819.GC52845@pandora.plagegeister.de> References: <200304062023.37473.fallenbr@uol.com.br> <200304062141.33136.taxman@acd.net> <20030408000819.GC52845@pandora.plagegeister.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 07 April 2003 05:08 pm, Mark Weinem wrote: > On Sun, 06 Apr 2003, taxman wrote: > > > > - Using the binary upgrade option of sysinstall(8). > > > > as far as I understand it, it's the worst of the three options. > > Back up and reinstall is the most reliable. I've done many many > > source upgrades, and never had serious problems that trying again > > didn't fix. > > I don't see why binary upgrading should be worst. Never had serious > problems with it. > I also agree with your comments about binary upgrading. I never had a problem jumping to a major upgrade. Some friends use a clean instal but I think that isl because they need to rethink their arrangements. It will also get rid of extraneous stuff. I think a major upgrade such as a 4.x to 5.x system might be handled best with a reinstall. I did this recently when 5.0 was released. The reason I did a reinstall was because my fs setup was totally inadequate for my uses. I think I had a 100 MB / and was always fighting to keep it under 100%. The next version had a 500 MB / and I am running something like 15-16%. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200304081134.16770.kstewart>