From owner-freebsd-stable  Sat Apr 19 16:16:35 1997
Return-Path: <owner-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA21658
          for stable-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.uniserve.com (mercury.uniserve.com [204.191.197.248])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA21653
          for <stable@freebsd.org>; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (shell.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by mercury.uniserve.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA00205; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
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!
In-Reply-To: <33592BD1.7F0F@PartsNow.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970419161214.8637A-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


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