From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 23 23:38:24 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@nevdull.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27DEDBAA for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:38:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cary@sdf.org) Received: from cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.166.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40BEE0C for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:38:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cary@sdf.org) Received: from [67.49.10.59] ([67.49.10.59:31762] helo=bsdstb) by cdptpa-oedge02 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 18/98-03253-DEDE9855; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:38:22 +0000 From: Cary To: Warren Block Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: getting ports updated on an older FreeBSD (5.1) In-Reply-To: (message from Warren Block on Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:09:12 -0600 (MDT)) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:38:21 -0700 Message-ID: <86k2uuov0y.fsf@bsdstb.Belkin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.130:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:38:24 -0000 Warren Block writes: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Cary wrote: > >> Warren Block writes: >> >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/23/15 08:59, Christoph Kukulies wrote: >>>>> I'm wondering whether it would be possible to >>>>> run a 10.1 executable under 5.1 (possible link it statically?). >>>> >>>> Your quickest and most reliable way forward is to upgrade your FreeBSD >>>> box to something supported. Given you're starting from such an old >> >> >>> Agreed, except I would suggest a completely separate computer for the >>> new install. Old stuff that has been running for years can be fragile. >>> Moving a cable that has been motionless for years can make it fail, and >>> it's somehow a given that these systems are never backed up. >>> >> >> Were that the case, could there be any risk running a 10.1 executable >> on such a system? > > I would be surprised if a 10.1 executable would run on a 5.1 system. > But that misses the point. Do not try to run modern binaries on an > ancient system. Set up a new 10.1 system, install new versions of the > same software, and copy configuration and data files from the old one. > Trying to update a 5.1 system in-place or run newer binaries on it is > unlikely to work. If it does work, it's probably going to be shaky. > If it doesn't work, trying to get it to work will almost certainly take > more time than setting up a new 10.1 system and configuring it with > modern versions of the same applications, then copying data and > configuration. > > Look at it this way: trying to do anything with a FreeBSD 5.1 system is > pretty much file recovery. Many, many things have changed since then. Yes, what you recommend is also what I would do. Upgrading is the OP's best option. Changes since 5.1 could be why he has not installed a recent version of FreeBSD. Copying over the old configuration he has been using may appear difficult also.