Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 22:29:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: karl@Mcs.Net (Karl Denninger) Cc: karl@mcs.com, current@freebsd.org, peter@haywire.DIALix.COM, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUP target for -STABLE, and setup for SUP info? Message-ID: <199507210529.WAA11175@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199507210348.WAA00203@Jupiter.mcs.net> from "Karl Denninger" at Jul 20, 95 10:48:26 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi there! > > > > > > I'd like to set up to get SUP updates of -STABLE, if there is a target for > > > it. > > > > Yes, and there is a sample sup file for getting it. Probably the best > > way to get that is to ftp it from the -CURRENT tree (I commited it there > > and pulled it into the -STABLE branch). Path name relative to the > > base of the -CURRENT src tree is: > > src/share/FAQ/extras/stable-supfile > > > > > Unfortunately for me, I haven't set up SUP before. Anyone got a FAQ for me > > > on the way to get this going? > > > > /usr/share/FAQ/Text/sup.FAQ on any 2.0.5 or later system or > > src/share/FAQ/Text/sup.FAQ from a source tree. > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > Your welcome! > > I guess that -STABLE isn't. It is as stable as we have, it is a slight notch above 2.0.5R, and a far lot more so than 2.2-CURRENT. > I get the same silent hang on the 1742 machine that I get on the other > releases, and we've added a panic in biodone to the mix. The 2742 driver > problems are not addressed in -STABLE either. That is correct, we can't address your 1742/2742 problem in _any_ branch until we find what it is that is causing it. Since we have not identified that problem how could we have fixed it??? > -CURRENT is incompatible with anything that touches the NFS areas, unless I > want to start completely over and reload the ENTIRE system. Since -CURRENT > is such a moving target, this isn't really a good option either, especially > when I have no idea when or if -CURRENT is stable. You made a mistake if you tried to go -CURRENT and you wanted stability, we never recomend -CURRENT for a site that is not willing to suffer through some rather serious problems at time. I don't know if someone told you to try this, or just what, but please, stop using -CURRENT to try and get stabalized, that is the wrong route to go as you have already found out :-(. > So right now, we have -RELEASE which doesn't run right, -STABLE which isn't, > and a -CURRENT which kernels blow up when tickled by -RELEASE's binaries > during the startup of NFS and amd. Mixing -RELEASE and -CURRENT is a no no, it is bound to have problems, and I do not recommend even trying that for any reason ever. > This is getting frustrating, and I'm running out of time and patience. > Perhaps this isn't the path we want to go down with our operating system > choice. Perhaps you should get on the -STABLE branch, stay there, and let us work the problems in _one_ tree. > I'm going to give this another week of effort, and if we don't have it > stable by then I'm tossing in the towel and going to start on the evaluation > process again from scratch. This is costing me far too much sleep. We can't get you stabalized if you change the code faster than I can respond to email :-) Please, compile up a make world from the STABLE sup bits, and lets tackle the bug with the 1742/2742 in that set of code without adding all the other complications of what is going on in -current. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507210529.WAA11175>