From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Jun 27 1:50:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B10E37BF7B; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:50:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id BAA07394; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:50:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:50:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Francisco Reyes Cc: FreeBSd Chat list Subject: Re: Why can't upgrades be simpler? In-Reply-To: <200006270352.XAA29208@sanson.reyes.somos.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Francisco Reyes wrote: > As I considering giving up on upgrading a box from 3.4 Stable to > 4.X I wonder why can't upgrades be made more gradual for those > of us following stable? As others have pointed out, you weren't following stable, you were jumping to a whole new version. The simple, painless way to do this is to do a binary upgrade, not a source one. > Must it be this way forever? Source-level upgrades will always be fraught with danger, especially those which cross major revisions. > Are BSDI upgrades any better? I've never installed BSD/OS, but I'd bet they're not significantly better than our binary upgrades, which are the equivalent operation. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message