From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 26 15:51:50 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C211065670 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:51:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from varga.michal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f54.google.com (mail-ew0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFAF38FC13 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:51:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy1 with SMTP id 1so756846ewy.13 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:51:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=osIJSKxkJIDRcUkbuF9jeppWP8bZWcK//JIzlVaEsUk=; b=pCrWrSmsHgqpuwkQbioPyvGku5vS982a7iDerj5nyxiMffThGQRXkxi5o3syjCDVYh VWB7e8tcI6Irlji13DxhKd+HtnjF3y9fAI2wpr0hHXbXzqA/q+Ae/NmURaKhk+LH2s67 efiA5K6ptS9cOStS9KwrBpkm5eU+72uSPqs70= Received: by 10.213.3.213 with SMTP id 21mr2325119ebo.26.1311695508246; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.101.2] (254.166.broadband10.iol.cz [90.177.166.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q16sm455553eef.7.2011.07.26.08.51.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:51:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Michal Varga To: Chuck Swiger In-Reply-To: References: <4E2E9F24.1040108@dichotomia.fr> <1311681539.1799.54.camel@xenon> <4E2ECEFE.5030302@dichotomia.fr> <1311693565.1799.81.camel@xenon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: Stonehenge Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:51:44 +0200 Message-ID: <1311695504.1799.93.camel@xenon> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making world but no kernel X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:51:50 -0000 On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 08:34 -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Michal Varga wrote: > > Well, that depends. Probably every single time I've seen someone > > touching sysinstal in a post-install environment, that OS was instantly > > rendered as much as good for a complete reinstall. It's just "one of > > those things" that shouldn't be present in any rescue scenario. > > I've been using sysinstall at dozens of customer sites since the > 1990's without ever once running into a problem resembling what you've > described. Considering the absence of specific details, I think > you're exaggerating well past the point of credibility. This is an opinion you're entitled to and I have no particular need to start proving you otherwise. As far as my concerns go, you're free to update your source trees by whatever means that suit you best, I was just pointing the OP a possible point of failure that is easy to avoid by a simple and easily controlled procedure, as there is perfectly nothing that can go wrong with csup. A vital part of any one-shot rescue operation is minimizing things that may go wrong, beforehand. Sysinstall is everything but 'minimal'. > Anyway, if someone does something bad using sysinstall and needs to > fix it, restoring from backups should be all that is needed. When > people talk about doing a complete reinstall, it implies to me that > they don't have backups in the first place. Yes, and interestingly this is, in my own experience, very common among people who use sysinstall to manage their systems (usually only about once or twice). Regards, m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge (Gmail account)