Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:24:31 -0500 (EST) From: Kenneth W Cochran <kwc@TheWorld.com> To: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrading 5.3 > 6.0 buildworld failure now in libmagic Message-ID: <200512070424.XAA14988905@shell.TheWorld.com> References: <200512051518.43896.vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> <20051206163732.K60888@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <4606.69.116.19.99.1133916617.squirrel@www.rfnj.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From: Vizion <vizion@vizion.occoxmail.com> >To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, bsdlists@rfnj.org >Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:41:30 -0800 >Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> >Subject: Re: Upgrading 5.3 > 6.0 buildworld failure now in libmagic > >On Tuesday 06 December 2005 16:50, the author Allen contributed to the >dialogue on- > Re: Upgrading 5.3 > 6.0 buildworld failure now in libmagic: > >>On Tue, December 6, 2005 19:44, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, secmgr wrote: >>>> Not to belabour this, but the 6.0 release notes do specificly say 5.3 >>>> RELEASE and newer. >>> >>> 5.4-STABLE is newer. :) >>> >>>> "Source upgrades to FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE are only supported from FreeBSD >>>> 5.3-RELEASE or later. Users of older systems wanting to upgrade 6.0-RELEASE >>>> will need to update to FreeBSD 5.3 or newer first, then to FreeBSD >>>> 6.0-RELEASE." >>> >>> How does this change to UPDATING in RELENG_6 look to you: >>> >>> Index: UPDATING >>> =================================================================== >>> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/UPDATING,v >>> retrieving revision 1.416.2.7 >>> diff -u -r1.416.2.7 UPDATING >>> --- UPDATING 1 Nov 2005 23:44:40 -0000 1.416.2.7 >>> +++ UPDATING 7 Dec 2005 00:42:04 -0000 >>> @@ -229,7 +229,13 @@ >>> page for more details. >>> >>> Due to several updates to the build infrastructure, source >>> - upgrades from versions prior to 5.3 no longer supported. >>> + upgrades from versions prior to 5.4-STABLE are not likely >>> + to succeed. >> >>Sorry to butt in but.. >> >>Doesn't the definition of -STABLE change, for all intents and purposes, by >>the minute? >> >>What next, "versions prior to 5.4-STABLE as of YYYYMMDD ...."? I believe I've seen exactly this type of notation in UPDATING over the years, in both 4.x & 5.x. >>> + >>> + When upgrading from one major version to another, it is >>> + generally best to upgrade to the latest code in the branch >>> + currently installed first, then do another upgrade to the >>> + new branch. >> >>This is getting closer to the truth. >> >>Why don't you just say "update to the most recent RELENG_5 before >>attempting." Future proof, no room for confusion. > [...snip...] > >There is however a perennial problem that freebsd documentation has always >been seen as behind and seperate from the development process rather than an Maybe (hmm, even probably :) but I've found documentation, announcements, errata, etc. (*manpages*) for FreeBSD to be *much* better, more relevant & up to date than, umm, "other" opensource systems. Compared to FreeBSD, other systems' documentation/manpages seem haphazard & in some cases even nonexistent. >integral part of that process. [...snip...] > >Certainly better documentation for the upgrade path between 5.3 and 6.0 would >have saved me a h*** of a lot of time.. but there it is.. live does not hand >out many A++s I would guess that it says 5.3 instead of 5.4 due to oversight, e.g. it was written/documented/recommended before 5.4 was out. Maybe that's (part of) the basis for the Handbook's recommendation of reading the -stable list if you indeed want to track past -RELEASE. :) >Thank you top everyone who helped. I have now successfully upgarded to 5.4 and >am about to begin the last leg of this journey towards 6.0. > >my two pennorth > >david >-- Mine too I guess :) -kc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200512070424.XAA14988905>