From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 2 08:24:16 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B259B607 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:24:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:3cd3:cd67:fafa:3d78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFE38FC0C for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:24:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rufus.webfusion.com (mail.heartinternet.co.uk [79.170.40.31]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.6/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r028O386059003 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:24:12 GMT (envelope-from matthew@freebsd.org) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.7.3 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk r028O386059003 Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk/r028O386059003; dkim=none reason="no signature"; dkim-adsp=none (insecure policy) X-Authentication-Warning: lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk: Host mail.heartinternet.co.uk [79.170.40.31] claimed to be rufus.webfusion.com Message-ID: <50E3EEA2.1090906@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:24:02 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Zyumbilev, Peter" Subject: Re: pkg_add and 9.1 Release References: <50E3DAB0.9020001@FreeBSD.org> <50E3E926.9010507@aboutsupport.com> In-Reply-To: <50E3E926.9010507@aboutsupport.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.6 at lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:24:16 -0000 On 02/01/2013 08:00, Zyumbilev, Peter wrote: > In this case for a new Nas4free machine, will you recommend to base it > on 9.0 or 9.1 ? Either. Whichever one works best for you, and if you can't distinguish them on performance or bug-fixes, choose 9.1. However, don't fall into the trap of thinking 'because I'm running OS version 9.0 I have to use the binary packages for 9.0.' You don't. And in fact, if it's more than a month or so since the OS was released, you should be checking for updates. Unfortunately, since the security problem, there haven't been updates to package sets for *any* OS versions available. So your best recourse is to pull down a copy of the ports tree and build what packages you need for yourself. This is time consuming, but not particularly difficult. Cheers, Matthew