Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 21:19:54 -0600 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <sysop@mixcom.com> To: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.2 Upgrading for idiots? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970320211953.00ce226c@mixcom.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:28 PM 3/20/97 -0800, Doug White wrote:
>Perhaps. sysinstall for the pre-2.2 series was pretty solid though. It
>sounds like our little crew here won't be all together to do the upgrade
>for a while, but if we find anything tweaky, Jordan will be the first to
>know :)
Had to do some thinking and it was the 2.1.0 -> 2.1.5 that was a problem
for me. Have to smile at the warnings and disclaimer, but will say that
from 2.1.5 -> 2.1.6 and -> 2.1.7 were smoother.
First to know or first to fix? ;-)
>> OK, but I would imagine that it would be a good idea to recompile some of
>> the packages, unless there is a new version. Some standard things I do as
>> a package, usually from sysinstall. Others have been customized, so I keep
>> the source out of the way of upgrades.
>
>True. I generally consider packages separate from the rest of the system.
>I certainly wouldn't want to force on upgrades to anyone -- we run some
>pretty old stuff on resnet, and if it was auto-upgraded we'd be in
>trouble.
Hehe. We have some older version of programs and call me lazy, I don't
feel like updating and adding any customizations. There are a few and the
BSDi server that users see will be going away... some day.
>> >We've gone to the pain of doing this for you -- unless you have need to
>> >build from edited source, save yourself and your computer some aspirin.
>>
>> Uh, no. Not really. 8-)
>
>Can you elaborate? I could use some education on "when to build and when
>to install" since I don't do builds because of lack of disk.
On not wanting a headache?
If you are refering to packages, the expedient thing would be to remake
them, but I am not enough of a hack to really say. Only some what familiar
with the libraries and their functions. Right now I am trying to track
down a problem in a compiled program, but I plan to poke around around
before posting.
>The new installer doesn't even touch /etc, so any customizations are
>preserved. You'll still want to merge across sysconfig, otherwise you'll
>get odd ipx messages because of some new directives added to sysconfig.
>If an item is missing from sysconfig, the results are somewhat undefined,
>usually the missing item will be activated.
If I am reading this right, the new installer - when upgrading - will *not*
do anything with /etc ?? Or are you referring to permissions? If it does
nothing, then one would need to merge the current, but older files, but
then where would the "new" /etc files be located.
Just a touch confused at what you are saying here. 8-)
I would expect when the binaries are updated that they go back to the
default permissions. However I have seen a system with botched
permissions. Rather irritating when /tmp is not mode 1777 (vi doesn't
work) and sendmail does not have 2111 (hard to mail otherwise). This I
cannot say was an install problem, as the box is a friends, so I'm not sure
what happened. At least I fixed it.
One would hope that if something were missing in sysconfig it would not be
activated. Only on one install did I have a problem with this file, which
was easily compared with a clean install of the same build. Still /etc/rc
has:
# If there is a global system configuration file, suck it in.
if [ -f /etc/sysconfig ]; then
. /etc/sysconfig
fi
So a missing item should not be activated and there are some '!=' ifs as well.
-------------------------------------------
Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator
jeff@mixcom.net
MIX Communications
Serving the Internet since 1990
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970320211953.00ce226c>