Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:46:21 -0500 From: "Nikolas Britton" <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> To: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Word processor for 6.1 Message-ID: <ef10de9a0609050646p43cde0cdt656366e91e1fe7a0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200609051408.30090.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <10609040708.AA17675@pluto.rain.com> <10609042328.AA20234@pluto.rain.com> <44FD36C4.7090509@locolomo.org> <200609051408.30090.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/5/06, RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 05 September 2006 09:35, Erik Norgaard wrote: > > > In the standard-supfile for the base system you'd specify RELENG_6 which > > means you'll get head of -STABLE, or if you are conservative RELENG_6_1 > > which means that you'll just get security patches to the 6.1 release. > > I do wish people wouldn't give inexperienced users the impresssion that > running 6-stable (RELENG_6 ) is the norm - this is a development branch. > Unfortunately it does feel like the norm. My servers are running 6-STABLE because the hardware is not fully supported in 6.1-RELEASE. I had the same problems when 6.0-RELEASE was rolled out. Maybe we should cut 6.2 early? that or time are release dates so they match up with Intel's chipset release dates. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ef10de9a0609050646p43cde0cdt656366e91e1fe7a0>