Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:01:54 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@urx.com> To: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> Cc: Charlie ROOT <root@hammerfell.dhs.org>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Congrats! Message-ID: <39933462.3CE18D78@urx.com> References: <200008102208.PAA35137@tao.thought.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Kline wrote: > > According to Kent Stewart: > > > > > > > > Gary Kline wrote: > > > > > [[ ... ]] > > > > > I don't see any point to it. I also like 4.1 much better than 3.x. I'm > > one of the people that tried the cvsup route to upgrade to 4.0R and > > failed; however, a couple of weeks later someone else had the same > > problem I did and, at that point, we understood what I had done wrong. > > They corrected what they were doing and it worked. By then, Warner had > > upgraded /usr/src/UPDATING to make it more clear about creating a new > > kernel config file from GENERIC and to use either GENERIC or your > > edited version of it in the make build(install)kernel sequence. > > MYKERNEL had to be an existing file. DUH! :) > > The only point I can think of to go 3.2 -> 3.5 to 4.1 > would be to avoid the white-knuckles:) of having to follow > Annelise A's instructions absolutely-precisely. That still applies. It applies just going from 4.0 to 4.1 but they made it easier. They /binutil's were changed and the config methodology of building a kernel doesn't work after a source change. The buildworld builds the world and then, the buildkernel builds the modules and the installkernel installs them. Then, you can do an installworld. > > Actually, I made a typo while following along and that cost > me an extra night + 6 more hours of reinstalling 3.2 and > then going back and following her instructions. So my first > attempt failed. But since I really had nothing to lose.... That is what makes the binary upgrade so attractive. You avoid the cross compilations and boot strapping that the source upgrade requires. You still have the problem of /etc being totally different. You would still have the HD names change and have to make those changes. They may even be changed for you but I wouldn't know if that happens. Your NIC's may have changed. Sound is different. Sound is still awkward but you don't have to do one thing if you have an ISA and another if you have a PCI. I never tried the binary upgrade because I went with the clean install on 4.0. That is also where 4.1 is so nice because the 1024 cylinder rule doesn't apply anymore. With a clean install you can restructure your system around having it your way instead of a little bit here and then rest of it here that we used to have to do in order to set our systems up. Kent > > > > > The big shock is how much longer a buildworld takes. It is close to 2x > > a make of 3.x. If you have access to a decent network, download the > > iso and you can do a binary upgrade. It has far less trouble. Sooner > > or later, you have to do a build world and the question is when are > > you going to do it. The only tricky problem is proceeding through some > > of the modules. You are really bootstraping your way up and can have > > problems. Herr Engelschall on 3 August had a pretty complete write up > > on the problems they had upgrading a number of systems from 3.5S to > > 4.1S. Check the stable archive for "[PROCEDURE] Successful 3.5-S to > > 4.1-S upgrade", which I don't think is limited to 3.5. > > Thanks for the pointer. I'll find, printout and study before > I do anything. --This time I think I'll make two full backups. > > > > > Did you solve your subscription problem. One of the recent problems > > was a badly placed email filter. You don't know it is badly placed > > until later but that was the problem. The confirmation messages were > > being forwarded to the bit-bucket. I could submit his text and would > > get a message from the majordomo that a request was being sent to > > their email address. I could also send their text minus the email > > address and subscribe but they couldn't. That made the problem a local > > one to their end but finding it was a little bit more work. > > > > This last time I re-sub'd there was no return blurb about my > having to be approved because -stable was a private group. > So it simply worked after I returned the confirmation. --I > haven't re-sub'd to ports yet. > > gary > > -- > Gary D. Kline kline@tao.thought.org Public service Unix > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kbstew99@hotmail.com http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/index.html FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/ Bomber dropping fire retardant in front of Hanford Wild fire. http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/bomber.jpg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39933462.3CE18D78>