Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:46:37 +1100 From: Jonathan Michaels <jon@welearn.com.au> To: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When does the 4.x branch go stable? Message-ID: <20000110234635.A21865@phoenix.welearn.com.au> In-Reply-To: <v04220803b49f5b4cd62c@[195.238.19.252]>; from Brad Knowles on Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:48:07AM %2B0100 References: <Pine.A41.4.10.10001091547130.91952-100000@dante24.u.washington.edu> <20000109235744.01C49A54EE@netcom1.netcom.com> <v04220803b49f5b4cd62c@[195.238.19.252]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
all, please excuse my slightly longish post, i'm looking at two issues here. i've finally come to terms with what "tracking -stable" actually is and what it means for me. i'm almost ready to cutover to springing for the cvsup version of kernel updating as opposed to the get the new -release cdrom and copy the new stuff over ... grin. On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:48:07AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 3:57 PM -0800 on 2000/1/9, Mike Harding wrote: > > > mmm - I guess I am ready to go to 4.x in general, just wondering when > > it would be 'safe'. This is for my home system and I would prefer to > > do a source code update in place... how safe would a -release 'upgrade' be ? then a migration to a -stable track a bit further down the line ? i've found the best way to upgrade was to take the hot backup server, clean off the hard disk media do a fresh install of the newer operating system, reconfigure the various bits, add the required packages and then let it sit freewheeling for a few days or about a week. after no hiccups i cut over the services one at a time, till i have it all cutover and working .. then i take a dump onto tape and restore this to the former 'hot' server, which now becomes the new hot backup server. i'm lucky in that i only need one a pair of hosts to take my entire workload. just to digress a little, after i take on the tracking of -stable, this hot baackup server could serve as an installation server and the 'official' -stable tracker from which i could roll my as required freebsd editions. or am i needlessly complicating my working environemnt so that i could just track -stable .. i'm only wanting to track the kernal sources and some of the base systems toolkits as supplied with the basic 'kernel builders' installation option from the sysinstall menu. > I've been watching the -current mailing list for a while now, and > what I currently see is that -CURRENT has a few niggling outstanding > problems (especially on older hardware), and a few pretty major > outstanding problems. what sort of hardware problems, please ? not architectural, or as regards old i386dx style, or i486dx style motherboards and thier atendant isa buss structures. my couple are running very well with 2.2.7-release, but sooner or latter i wll need to get on board a more recent freebsd, if for no other reason than for teh inherant security weakness that have been fixed over the last year or so. also, i have a few adaptec aha1542b's that are running very well, some of teh newer stuff is .... those small and fragile pci buss cards tend to get damaged quickly if not handled correctly, my hands are not a agile as they used to be is what i'm getting at here. anway cheers warm regards jonathan -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000110234635.A21865>