From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 24 17:17:49 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 C422F16A4CE for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:17:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (smtp3.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7509B43D1F for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:17:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5OHHUF4032754; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:17:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040624041443.5d86b160@localhost> References: <20040624041443.5d86b160@localhost> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:17:29 -0400 To: epilogue@allstream.net, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org From: Garance A Drosehn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) Subject: Re: alternative method for make / install world --- ? 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: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:17:49 -0000 At 4:14 AM -0400 6/24/04, epilogue@allstream.net wrote: >hello all, > >I have recently been mulling over an article which proposes >an abridged set of steps for updating the system. > >----------- >http://www.bsdnews.org/03/bsd_update.php > >alias rebuild 'cd /usr/src && make update && make world && > make kernel && mergemaster' >----------- > >in a nutshell, the author proposes the following steps: > >1) rebuild >2) answer the mergemaster prompts >3) reboot >4) all done We have a list of steps which we believe to be reliable. We have absolutely no reason to add in steps "just to annoy you". We are just as eager to have a quick system rebuild as anyone else would be. You can often get away with skipping some of those steps, but if you DO skip them, then YOU are responsible when something does go wrong. And sooner or later, it will go wrong. You can bet on it. You should expect it. By that I mean, *when* something does go wrong, then you should immediately suspect that the problem is due to your procedure. You should not "forget" that you have refused to follow the recommended procedure, and you should not come yelling at anyone else because "they broke your system". In the case of this author, he is tracking the 4.x-stable branch. At this point in time, that branch sees very very little activity, and because of that his strategy has probably worked quite well for him. However, it will not work as well on the -current branch. And very soon we will be moving to 5.3-stable as "the stable branch", and after we do then his strategy is much more likely to run into serious problems. And when it does, it will be you with the broken system, and it may be that you will be the only one who will be able to fix whatever was broken. Think if it this way. We have a list of steps that we document. If you want to use some alternate list, then what makes you think we will test *our* changes with *your* alternate strategy? We will not. Sooner or later, something will break. On the one hand we will feel bad for you, but on the other hand we can not help you if you refuse to follow the steps that we have found to be the most reliable. Yes, it is tempting to take shortcuts. But sooner or later you will be burned by taking them. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA