Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:21:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com> To: Don Wilde <Don@PartsNow.com> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: stable gotta be stable! Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970419161214.8637A-100000@haven.uniserve.com> In-Reply-To: <33592BD1.7F0F@PartsNow.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Don Wilde wrote: > 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. 2.1.7.1 and 2.2.1 have the same ahc driver. As far as X, goes, I have no idea why you'd want to run X on network server for, but XFree86 is not strictly part of FreeBSD. It is developed separately. Whatever rev of XFree86 that comes with 2.1.7 should run on 2.2.1 too. > 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. I can't play with immature code. At home So you would prefer to take those servers down and reinstall from CD rather than use cvsup to pull down a few hundred K worth of updates to 2.1.7, and do a "makeworld; make install"? The real issue here is not 2.2 vs 2.1, but whether any more 2.1 releases should be made. Considering that people with 2.1.x can get patches/updates via cvsup so easily, and the only downtime you need is a reboot after installing the new kernel. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.970419161214.8637A-100000>