Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 14:12:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Studded <Studded@gorean.org>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current state of the conventional wisdom? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.03.9905051357490.24610-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <19990505110655.U40359@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > >> statements, you should at least justify them. > > > > 1. 2.2.X -> 3.X upgrade doesn't handle a.out libraries, rendering a.out > > bins (netscape, built ports, etc.) useless until they're moved. > > It did for me. I was referring to sysinstall, not make aout-to-elf (which is getting more stale every day). > > 2. Sysinstall locks up during the second device probe. > > I haven't seen this. A couple of people have reported it recently. > > 3. Sysinstall locks up during extraction on machines with <=8MB RAM. > Yes, this is one known bug. Figured that :) > > 4. Kernel panics mysteriously after device probe when devices are > > removed; unedited kernel boots normally. > > I haven't seen this. I've run into it myself on a couple of occaisions, plus several -questions reports. I don't have a box I can play with and debug, however. > > 5. /kernel.config fiasco. > > Details? See the errata .... > A lot of this suggests hearsay rather than firm problems. The only > one I know of as a fact is (3), and that doesn't affect most people. > What are the PR numbers for these problems? I would have filed these myself, had I the equipment, time, and expertise to do so. But I don't. > > I'll wait and see. The conventional release cycle has the .5 release as a > > strong comeback for the branch. Reference 2.0.5, 2.1.5, 2.2.5... > > You've been away for a while. There will be no more .X.5 releases. I'm getting used to the new version format, although I'm not very happy with it. > > -CURRENT is the best NFS candidate, thanks to Matt Dillon's hard work. > > Unfortunately -CURRENT has problems elsewhere. > > Of course, that's why it's -CURRENT. But -stable shouldn't be less stable than -current. :-) At least for the time it's been broken. Doug White Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.03.9905051357490.24610-100000>