Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:24:03 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will 5.4 be an "Extended Life" release? Message-ID: <4263ED33.6040504@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050418105722.05c08490@localhost> References: <20050412213328.GC1953@lava.net> <6.2.1.2.2.20050417185631.05349ee0@localhost> <200504180330.37184.danny@ricin.com> <426310A0.7060906@freebsd.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050417202031.0490ad98@localhost> <4263280B.3010601@freebsd.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050418020749.05761298@localhost> <002b01c5442c$d4a1caf0$9b00030a@officescape.net> <6.2.1.2.2.20050418094749.057187f0@localhost> <007c01c5442f$c9a36ed0$9b00030a@officescape.net> <6.2.1.2.2.20050418105722.05c08490@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > Actually, it tends not to recognize it at all. If the string doesn't > say "4.11-RELEASE", the software reports that ports, packages, etc. > can't be found. Try installing packages with /stand/sysinstall on > a snapshot and you'll see what I mean. Colin's "FreeBSD-update" seems > to exhibit similar behavior. FreeBSD Update will complain if it isn't foo-RELEASE or foo-SECURITY. I added this because some people were running FreeBSD Update on -STABLE or -CURRENT systems and getting, err, unanticipated breakage. (Consider what happens when you "update" a 5.0-current system by replacing its libc.so with one from a fully security-patched 5.0-release system.) I usually choose to allow users to shoot their own feet if they want, but since I wrote FreeBSD Update primarily for the benefit of less experienced FreeBSD users I decided that some anti-foot-shooting mechanisms were a good idea. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4263ED33.6040504>