Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:10:43 -0700 From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> To: Don Wilde <Don@PartsNow.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: stable gotta be stable! Message-ID: <199704192210.PAA02616@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> In-Reply-To: Don Wilde <Don@PartsNow.com> "stable gotta be stable!" (Apr 19, 1:32pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 19, 1:32pm, Don Wilde wrote: } Subject: stable gotta be stable! } I have 4 on-line machines which are running 2.1.7. I am hesitant } to use 2.2.1 until I know both the X and 2940 problems are put to bed. I'm pretty much in the same boat. I'm running a version somewhere between 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 and have been hesitant to upgrade due to the 2940 changes that started sometime before 2.1.7. It's my understanding that the same changes were made in both the 2.1.x and 2.2.x branches. I haven't seen any problem reports since the last set of changes, so maybe it's finally a good time to upgrade. } I do not intend to use the CDROM.COM servers to update via } internet as I have a lot of machines to update (besides the live } machines)and I don't have spare bandwidth or the time to babysit full } upgrades. I have been using the CD's as my -stable. I **DO** need to be } able to view them as stable, as my company depends on its webservers and } firewall for its very business. In my case, the CD's are pretty useless, and I really don't much care if formal releases are done, since I've added a number of local changes to what we're running here. What I've been doing is tracking the 2.1 tree using CTM. I upgrade one machine with "make world". I then do a "make release", to build a customized release distribution that I install on an internal anonymous ftp server. I can then install or upgrade all the other machines from this server at Ethernet speed. --- Truck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704192210.PAA02616>