From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 22 11:40:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961E216A4CE for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:40:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl (wcborstel.demon.nl [82.161.134.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE21443D1F for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:40:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jorn@wcborstel.nl) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.wcborstel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491E643A2; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:40:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (www.wcborstel.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88051-09; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:40:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.wcborstel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FD74387; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:40:55 +0100 (CET) From: "Jorn Argelo" To: Chris Hastie , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:40:55 +0100 Message-Id: <20041222113804.M25188@wcborstel.nl> In-Reply-To: <7W7$SMDXuVyBFw51@celandine.oak-wood.co.uk> References: <7W7$SMDXuVyBFw51@celandine.oak-wood.co.uk> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.41 20040926 X-OriginatingIP: 82.161.134.53 (jorn) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.wcborstel.nl Subject: Re: How to upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3 with only remote access X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:40:31 -0000 On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:33:43 +0000, Chris Hastie wrote > Hi > > I'm sure there must be documentation on this, but I just can't find > it. Plenty of stuff on upgrading from 4.x to 5.3, but nothing on > upgrading from 5.2.1 > > The situation is that I have a remote, leased server running 5.2.1. > I have ssh access only, no console access or terminal server, so > anything involving single user mode is not an option. I believe the > original installation was a binary installation, though I have since > installed some of the source (using sysinstall) so that I could > customise the kernel. I never did an make installworld in single user mode, and it always went fine. It's probably not the right thing to do, though. You could ask the personnel there to do the steps required in single user mode. They can probably hook up a monitor on it. Cheers, Jorn.