From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 19 17:35:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA10784 for current-outgoing; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA10772 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA29198; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:35:17 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:34:36 -0600 To: "Kenneth R. Westerback" From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: 2.2R: Starting with CTM Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 6:31 PM -0600 3/19/97, Kenneth R. Westerback wrote: >When I made my first attempt (on 2.1.7) to create an updated source tree >via CTM (ftp'ing the delta's) I found that even though I had installed a >complete source tree during my initial setup I could not use that tree as >a base for CTM deltas. The file .ctm_status was not present in /usr/src >and I could not find any clues as how to manually create one that would >accurately reflect the level of the source tree installed from CDROM. > >Thus I mv'ed /usr/src to something else (after discovering the CTM base >delta could not be applied against an existing tree) and applied the base >and deltas and proceeded from there. > >When I downloaded the 2.2R release I deliberately did NOT get the src >distribution as I expected I would have to download as much again in a >base delta. Instead I downloaded the base delta and all subsequent deltas >(up to 210 at the moment), built the tree and compiled just fine (at least >after remembering to link /usr/src to my 2.2 directory). > >Whew. Now the question! > >Did I correctly conclude that downloading the 2.2R src distribution was a >waste of my time? i.e. it would have still lacked the .ctm_status file or >equivalent information that would allow me to use it as a base delta? > >And if my conclusion was correct, WHY? Why not just provide the >.ctm_status file? Surely the src distribution corresponds to a >specific level available from CTM? What am I missing? You are missing reading the new README file that accompanies the ctm deltas. I'm one step ahead of you. Rather than generate a base delta at 209 which IS 2.2-RELEASE, I froze things at 208 and then generated 209 directly from the src tarballs. All you have to do is install ALL (except the security ones) of the src tarballs and add the .ctm_status file. Instructions are in the ftp directory along with all the deltas. Then grab 210 and you will be up to date. What you did is also fine. All roads lead to 210 (and beyond) :-)