Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:59:45 +0200 From: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> To: Thomas Mueller <mueller23@insightbb.com> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 9.1 minimal ram requirements Message-ID: <CA%2B7WWSeWvLZy%2BQ4wwaUQQsCF86CDUZYewuTCWrvbZ0ZM574%2BwQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87.5C.07640.028DED05@smtp02.insight.synacor.com> References: <87.5C.07640.028DED05@smtp02.insight.synacor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Thomas Mueller <mueller23@insightbb.com> wrote: > from Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>: > >> In an ideal world, the bits that will almost certainly become FreeBSD 9.1 >> would not appear on the masters, or any of the mirrors, until the same >> instant that the release announcement is set to freebsd-announce@FreeBSD.org. > >> In practice this doesn't happen. If there is some clever way for that to >> happen, we haven't found it yet. > >> It has happened in the past that even as the release bits were propogating, >> One Last Big Bug was found and those bits had to be pulled and re-done. It >> would have looked like you had FreeBSD Release X.Y but you wouldn't have had >> the final bits that everyone else did. > >> I understand your frustration that this process takes days, and in general >> the frustration with this particular release -- more than you could possibly >> believe. However, until we figure out the process that would exist in an >> ideal world, this is what we have, and so if you need something that will be >> in 9.1, your options at this moment are: build an install from 9-STABLE; find >> one of the snapshots (and no, I am not the one to ask, sorry); or wait. > >> Sorry, but that's the best I can offer right now. > >> mcl > > So that's why I downloaded-updated source tree using svn, built and installed, > and uname -a revealed 9.1-PRERELEASE. It seemed strange after 9.1-RELEASE > became available on FTP servers December 5. Maybe they can do something to > better document "device ctl" in GENERIC; I kept it because it was there, and > one is led to think it is needed due to changes in FreeBSD. > > > Tom Most likely you took the stable/9 aka 9-STABLE sources. They have internal name "9.1-PRERELEASE" until the 9.1-RELEASE goes out of the door.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2B7WWSeWvLZy%2BQ4wwaUQQsCF86CDUZYewuTCWrvbZ0ZM574%2BwQ>