From owner-freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Tue Jan 10 00:15:45 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E3ECA8F6B for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:15:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F9F159A for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:15:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 6F4A7CA8F6A; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:15:45 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: doc@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EECDCA8F69 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:15:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu [18.7.68.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22FAF1599 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:15:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) X-AuditID: 12074424-867ff700000009ba-bd-587427a99b7a Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id B4.0C.02490.9A724785; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id v0A0FaWk027750; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:15:37 -0500 Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id v0A0FXeh001829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 19:15:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 18:15:34 -0600 From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Eric Rucker Cc: doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE upgrading comments Message-ID: <20170110001533.GK8460@kduck.kaduk.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrLtKvSTC4OwHMYud9xYzWUz9uJPV gcljxqf5LB47Z91lD2CK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MqYeqebpWAKR8XOC02sDYxn2boYOTkkBEwk pv64wAhiCwm0MUmc+iDdxcgFZG9glJjy6RkLROIKk8T86ZUgNouAikTb9r3sIDYbkN3QfZkZ xBYBsu9c+AlWzywgLDGj5yuYLQy04O6LOWDLeAWMJRbd+ww1M0Di7ac77BBxQYmTM59A9WpJ 3Pj3kqmLkQPIlpZY/o8DJMwpECgx48p2sHJRAWWJhhkPmCcwCsxC0j0LSfcshO4FjMyrGGVT cqt0cxMzc4pTk3WLkxPz8lKLdM31cjNL9FJTSjcxgkKU3UVlB2N3j/chRgEORiUe3ogJxRFC rIllxZW5hxglOZiURHkNdgGF+JLyUyozEosz4otKc1KLDzFKcDArifDaKJVECPGmJFZWpRbl w6SkOViUxHkvZbpHCAmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWRlODiUJHj3qwE1ChalpqdWpGXmlCCkmTg4QYbz AA2fC1LDW1yQmFucmQ6RP8WoKCXOux4kIQCSyCjNg+sFpRCJ7P01rxjFgV4R5v2nClTFA0w/ cN2vgAYzAQ2OtCsGGVySiJCSamC03r6BeXpWRIr3EjF2c6UP5m83cMef2LR46mqPm9zlaw4Z /ZW6J3pceLb29duLeFo/6WvEf1ZsrGY6+u//EvGzKffSbtisWvOmplGTcZFDpdWhZR8m2S2q b3rjUOO7zvDEr59PBed8X2LDPeFZXFNH/+xyh2vqLuvir8lLXl3v8Dfgt5mzCHuREktxRqKh FnNRcSIASkNX3PwCAAA= X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:15:45 -0000 On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 08:13:06AM -0500, Eric Rucker wrote: > Hello, > > I've noticed that I was unable to perform an upgrade directly to > FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE from 9.3-RELEASE by following the directions in > this document: https://www.freebsd.org/releases/11.0R/installation.html > > Upon attempting to run freebsd-update upgrade -R 11.0-RELEASE, I > received the error "The update metadata is correctly signed, but > failed an integrity check." I received no such error going to > 10.3-RELEASE instead. > > Is this a bug, or a documentation error? I am more inclined to suspect documentation error, in that IIRC there was an errata notice relating to how integrity checks were done on updates, which was needed in order to update past a version boundary in that range. Are you at the latest 9.3 patchlevel already? If not, it's probably best to take all available updates within 9.3 before attempting the major version upgrade. (That is, please show the `uname -a` output from the system in question.) -Ben