Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:11:30 -0500 From: Alex Stangl <alex@stangl.us> To: utisoft@gmail.com Cc: SA <shopacct13@yahoo.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd "toaster" Message-ID: <20090617131130.GF78640@scout.stangl.us> In-Reply-To: <b79ecaef0906170317oec6a90g5f2671d227f598b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <984490.6805.qm@web43139.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <20090617045535.GD78640@scout.stangl.us> <b79ecaef0906170317oec6a90g5f2671d227f598b9@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:17:32AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > Just curiosity, what's wrong with source upgrading? Isn't it miles > easier than reinstalling? Probably nothing. I haven't done it before, so there's the usual apprehension dealing with the unknown. I originally thought that since I just use a generic kernel, a binary upgrade should be quickest, easiest, and safest. Freebsd.org was touting the freebsd-update script, so that seemed the obvious way to go. I guess I'll clean up the mess left by freebsd-update and try the route of upgrading via source. But then I am left wondering why the freebsd.org site continues to recommend using freebsd-update which is seemingly broken and unsupported, while people on the mailing list recommend source upgrades instead. Thanks, Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090617131130.GF78640>