From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 26 18:03:44 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2CF150 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:03:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpaasial@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9938FC14 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id qd14so10534108ieb.20 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:03:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=o4IyQLF+mDzr4CnSB4zfgyKqBUbxiuo3VclK60/9RSc=; b=WrAtEDfwztDUneVilKyiLCPxnMFzYcDxUlK8XnXYXvPcmK/K1qYWlSyR4FCVotHUwp Jrvk4MAtmkG1L7aY6Z+2prr6eFcICpgrHoNPcVL+RxejettDwCO6fweDcltMrkqDqUOc Q4Vpc49vjAjZbXcuz+9ViLUjUlbrp2AIqih+iEeOVMDeHbGvZ1Fu9dRWQBhS+aEt02G2 xOeRWsz+KHwLQmqi17Hnch8LVh03BRdjLx9LA4qtOuSP0TNLuvNB2FeZiOWnNzUvV8UU zaJxF/Pmh8p1Y6QtQdXH0r7ApB3anft8z+oybXJdvR6jGpa0ZPew/3ozaQ+t83HId/88 AQ5w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.57.225 with SMTP id l1mr24277837igq.37.1356544562899; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.143.138 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:56:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121226174304.GA1397@faust.sbb.rs> References: <20121225151532.GA1404@faust.sbb.rs> <20121226170233.GA1408@faust.sbb.rs> <20121226174304.GA1397@faust.sbb.rs> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 19:56:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 9.1 minimal ram requirements From: Kimmo Paasiala To: Zoran Kolic Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, CeDeROM X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 26 Dec 2012 18:03:44 -0000 On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote: >> 9.1-RC3 works just fine as well for some weeks :-) When your computers >> are not production machines I also recommend this to you Zoran to test >> RC in order to make RELEASE a better product. What you have now is >> labeled as RELEASE but it is a decoration. The "RELEASE" will be >> different from what you have found and installed (I think there are >> already versions with different tags available). This is really the >> thing that pushed me away from Linux :-( > > I removed the line and it booted just fine. > To me, 9.1 is probably the best looking release, but > it might be due to new hardware. > > I'n not aware what is going on, regarding release or > "release". At full speed I support the way devel team > does the work. And contrary, the team has to bear with > users, who want to know. I had new desktop and new > laptop waiting, since power surge killed some devices > at my home. And I waited for 3 months. None could say > I was impatient. The release image is on the site. And, > if you change RC3 to RELEASE in browser, there is even > more. Why would serious guys keep those files available, > if not for usage? > My best guess is that some packages compile made all > that fuss. What else might be? > Best regards > > Zoran You are correct, the hold up that has kept the release from being announced is the recent security incident that could have compromised the package build clusters. It looks like everything is all right after all.