From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 7 03:41:35 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6786216A423; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 03:41:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com) Received: from dukecmmtao02.coxmail.com (dukecmmtao02.coxmail.com [68.99.120.69]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA2F43D5D; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 03:41:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com) Received: from dns1 ([64.58.171.82]) by dukecmmtao02.coxmail.com (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051207034151.GIHB6953.dukecmmtao02.coxmail.com@dns1>; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 22:41:51 -0500 From: Vizion To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, bsdlists@rfnj.org Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:41:30 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 References: <200512051518.43896.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20051206163732.K60888@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <4606.69.116.19.99.1133916617.squirrel@www.rfnj.org> In-Reply-To: <4606.69.116.19.99.1133916617.squirrel@www.rfnj.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512061941.31866.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> Cc: Doug Barton , Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Upgrading 5.3 > 6.0 buildworld failure now in libmagic 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: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 03:41:35 -0000 On Tuesday 06 December 2005 16:50, the author Allen contributed to the dialogue on- Re: Upgrading 5.3 > 6.0 buildworld failure now in libmagic: >On Tue, December 6, 2005 19:44, Doug Barton wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, secmgr wrote: >>> Not to belabour this, but the 6.0 release notes do specificly say 5.3 >>> RELEASE >>> and newer. >> >> 5.4-STABLE is newer. :) >> >>> "Source upgrades to FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE are only supported from FreeBSD >>> 5.3-RELEASE or later. Users of older systems wanting to upgrade >>> 6.0-RELEASE >>> will need to update to FreeBSD 5.3 or newer first, then to FreeBSD >>> 6.0-RELEASE." >> >> How does this change to UPDATING in RELENG_6 look to you: >> >> Index: UPDATING >> =================================================================== >> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/UPDATING,v >> retrieving revision 1.416.2.7 >> diff -u -r1.416.2.7 UPDATING >> --- UPDATING 1 Nov 2005 23:44:40 -0000 1.416.2.7 >> +++ UPDATING 7 Dec 2005 00:42:04 -0000 >> @@ -229,7 +229,13 @@ >> page for more details. >> >> Due to several updates to the build infrastructure, source >> - upgrades from versions prior to 5.3 no longer supported. >> + upgrades from versions prior to 5.4-STABLE are not likely >> + to succeed. > >Sorry to butt in but.. > >Doesn't the definition of -STABLE change, for all intents and purposes, by >the minute? > >What next, "versions prior to 5.4-STABLE as of YYYYMMDD ...."? > >> + >> + When upgrading from one major version to another, it is >> + generally best to upgrade to the latest code in the branch >> + currently installed first, then do another upgrade to the >> + new branch. > >This is getting closer to the truth. > >Why don't you just say "update to the most recent RELENG_5 before >attempting." Future proof, no room for confusion. Well I do not want to not thank those who have made the upgrades viable. The value of their work should not be underrated. There is however a perennial problem that freebsd documentation has always been seen as behind and seperate from the development process rather than an integral part of that process. I do not know whether that historical habit is changeable. I suspect it is the only major disadvantage from what I would personally describe as a somewhat "technologically centred meritocratic school of governance" for the freebsd project. Some improved cohesion between the desire to meet the developmental needs and a desirable objective to provide an end user-centric operation is, to my mind desirable. On the other hand freebsd has prospered in the past by devotion to reliance upon idiosyncratic individual initiatives and that does not blend well with co-operatively integrated plans to similtaneously meet the twin goals I identify. On the whole the result is a A for freebsd when we all want an A++ Certainly better documentation for the upgrade path between 5.3 and 6.0 would have saved me a h*** of a lot of time.. but there it is.. live does not hand out many A++s Thank you top everyone who helped. I have now successfully upgarded to 5.4 and am about to begin the last leg of this journey towards 6.0. my two pennorth david -- 40 yrs navigating and computing in blue waters. English Owner & Captain of British Registered 60' bluewater Ketch S/V Taurus. Currently in San Diego, CA. Sailing bound for Europe via Panama Canal after completing engineroom refit.