Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:01:40 -0500 (EST) From: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> To: adamw@FreeBSD.ORG (Adam Weinberger) Cc: bsdterm@HotPOP.com (E.S.), kstewart@owt.com (Kent Stewart), freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make buildkernel says device atapicam is unknown!!?? Message-ID: <200211141501.gAEF1eG18646@clunix.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20021114083247.GH18778@vectors.cx> from "Adam Weinberger" at Nov 14, 2002 12:32:48 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >> (11.14.2002 @ 0019 PST): E.S. said, in 4.8K: << > > I've considered it, but isn't -STABLE a bit less stable than -RELEASE, > > since the source in it is newer? > > - -RELEASE is just a snapshot of -STABLE at a specific point in time. In > general, -STABLE is supposed to remain stable enough to be a -RELEASE at > nearly any given point in time. Theoretically. Sortof. > > I have *never* had -STABLE not boot up for me, or cause the massive > experimental problems that one might associate with -CURRENT. > > /Adam Guess I will dip my oar in here and take this further off topic. It is something I wonder about a lot because we build a package of stuff based on FreeBSD and send it out to our user sites. I understand that when a '-RELEASE' is made, extra special care is taken to make sure EVERYTHING is up-to-date as far as it can go. This includes even the ports tree and hoping the ports supporters check their stuff. So, although I believe that changes in -STABLE are tested and seen as reliable and secure, I take -RELEASE to be more complete than -STABLE. How far off am I? ////jerry > > - -- > Adam Weinberger > adam@vectors.cx > adamw@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?200211141501.gAEF1eG18646>