RW Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:17:20 +0100 (BST)
RW From: Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RW On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
RW
RW Perhaps work on 7 should have been delayed until 5 and 6 were able to woo
RW people away from 4 -- or at least not leave valid reasons for people
RW
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Your 4.x system is not doing to die when we EOL 4.x. We're only
saying that it is not going to see any additional work on it in
the official FreeBSD repository.
Actually, we're not even saying that. We're just saying that it will no
longer be
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
On 2006.10.12 10:59:18 +0300, Patrick Okui wrote:
One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which
is why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
binary upgrade as the only way I can get to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Laco wrote:
Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0... From my personal
experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine, all on the same
hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install than I ever did with my
4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to
Chris Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From my personal experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine,
all on the same hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install
than I ever did with my 4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to see
if 6.0 will run on it.
The transition from 4.x to
At 09:39 AM 10/11/2006, Dan Lukes wrote:
Even if no new ports will be compilable on 4.x, even if
the old ports will not be updated with exception of update caused
by security bug, I vote for delaying EOL of 4.11
I would second that vote. Yes, some of the new enhancements in 6.x
are
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 10/13/06, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DragonFly has made substantial rewrites/changes since the fork from
FreeBSD.
I think to assume that there are no regressions in either stability,
speed,
or support may be naive.
Has anyone tried benchmarking
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
Perhaps work on 7 should have been delayed until 5 and 6 were able to woo
people away from 4 -- or at least not leave valid reasons for people wanting
to stay behind. (Note that I'm more sympathetic than my tone might
indicate; I've also gotten
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:59:10AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
I think the most likely path of success is, as you say, to make the
4.x
userland more like 6.x.
For anyone who really wishes to stick to
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
I am all for it.
According to this thread, it appears the 4.x branch is still used for
whatever reasons, may they be perceived good or bad depends on one's own
consideration and feeling. If the FreeBSD Project is going to relinquish
RELENG_4
Garance A Drosihn napsal/wrote, On 10/12/06 04:09:
Your 4.x system is not doing to die when we EOL 4.x. We're only
This is an open-source project. If it really is as easy to support
4.x with security fixes as you think it is, then you (all of you
Yes, I'm ready to self-support the 4.x
One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which is
why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
binary upgrade as the only way I can get to RELENG_6. Is this still the case
(because the logistics on arranging that are ... interesting) or is
On 2006.10.12 10:59:18 +0300, Patrick Okui wrote:
One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which is
why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
binary upgrade as the only way I can get to RELENG_6. Is this still the case
(because the
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Dan Lukes wrote:
But, maybe for my poor knowledge of english, you misunderstand the
point of my think.
Your English is quite good, actually. :)
The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I
Hi list,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 03:15:25PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
In order to facilitate this effort, I'd like to suggest that a new
mailing list be created, freebsd-releng4. That would allow the
interested folks to get together, pool resources, and decide what is
possible.
I am all
Doug Barton wrote:
The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I speaked about
performance in some situation and believe in it's stability.
I think saying that it's a worse replacement is a bit too broad.
Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0...
Problem is performance and trust in stability. It's
money and hardware independent problem.
5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count
it as competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release
in 6.x tree.
Quoting Dan Lukes [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:40:48 +0200):
I'm using 6-STABLE (and 5-STABLE previously) on some unimportant
computers and I'm reposting observered problems (mostly with offer of
patch).
The trick is to make some noise and get the attention of a
On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
I think the most likely path of success is, as you say, to make the
4.x
userland more like 6.x.
For anyone who really wishes to stick to freebsd 4.x for performance,
we should refer them to dragonflybsd, which seems to be taking this
On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Dan Lukes wrote:
5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count it as
competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release in 6.x tree.
6.0 has stability problem. The 6.1 is sufficiently stable on
average use, but it still has problems in edge
ML Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:41:10 -0500
ML From: Mark Linimon
ML We are currently trying to support 4 major CVS branches.
Ughh.
Perhaps work on 7 should have been delayed until 5 and 6 were able to
woo people away from 4 -- or at least not leave valid reasons for people
wanting to stay
KK Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:46:54 -0400
KK From: Kris Kennaway
KK The 4.x support policy was announced some time ago and may be found
KK here:
policy != justification
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Hi,
ML We are currently trying to support 4 major CVS branches.
EBD Perhaps work on 7 should have been delayed until 5 and 6 were able to
EBD woo people away from 4 -- or at least not leave valid reasons for
RBD people
Eeehm, afaik 5 is an interim for 6, so 5 should be stopped. I know plenty
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:59:10AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
I think the most likely path of success is, as you say, to make the
4.x
userland more like 6.x.
For anyone who really wishes to stick to freebsd 4.x for performance,
we
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:43:01PM +, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
KK Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:46:54 -0400
KK From: Kris Kennaway
KK The 4.x support policy was announced some time ago and may be found
KK here:
policy != justification
Yes, and the justification has also been discussed
Doug Barton napsal/wrote, On 10/12/06 21:06:
The odds are pretty close to 100% that things will run better with 6.x
than with 5.x. Many fixes that have been MFC'ed to 6.x have not and will
not be ported to 5.x.
It's better to explicitly ask for MFC to selected branches when
submitting PR.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:59:10AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
For anyone who really wishes to stick to FreeBSD 4.x for performance,
we should refer them to dragonflybsd, which seems to be taking this
approach. It was forked from FreeBSD 4.8 and seems to pretty modern
in userland.
On 10/13/06, Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DragonFly has made substantial rewrites/changes since the fork from
FreeBSD.
I think to assume that there are no regressions in either stability,
speed,
or support may be naive.
Has anyone tried benchmarking DragonflyBSD against FreeBSD 5.x
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0700, FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
Users of FreeBSD 4.11 systems are also reminded that that FreeBSD 4.11
will reach its End of Life at the end of January 2007 and that they
should be making plans to upgrade or replace such systems.
Though I admit
Hello!
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
For instance, according to Julian Elischer's posts, it seems he is still
working on it.
Is it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
[...]
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
more ?
Yes, I'm also
I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited supply,
but if you solicit the opinion of the community, I'd bet that more people
would rather see 4.x support continue than 5.x support.
I know that it would be a violation of the stated policy, but I think that
On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited
supply,
but if you solicit the opinion of the community, I'd bet that more
people
would rather see 4.x support continue than 5.x support.
I know that it would be a
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0700, FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
Users of FreeBSD 4.11 systems are also reminded that that FreeBSD 4.11
will reach its End of Life at the end of January 2007 and that they
should be making plans to upgrade or replace such
At 8:42 AM -0700 10/11/06, Jason Stone wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
[...]
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
...
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
more ?
Yes, I'm also voting for it. This support may be limited to
remote-exploitable vulnerabilities only, but I'm sure
Jason Stone wrote:
I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited
supply,
You just hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of FreeBSD
developers (including but not limited to the committer community) have
moved on. If you (meaning the people that want continued
Well, I suspect that most people with the resources to do what you ask
have already moved on precisely because the EoL has been published.
i.e., faced with that limited commitment, we had no choice but to
(grudgingly and at the last minute) move on.
I think the most likely path of success is, as
Garance A Drosihn napsal/wrote, On 10/11/06 21:33:
Even if no new ports will be compilable on 4.x, even if the
old ports will not be updated with exception of update caused by
security bug, I vote for delaying EOL of 4.11
That's easy to say.
I understand that it's much more work than
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 03:36:10PM -0700, Paul Allen wrote:
Well, I suspect that most people with the resources to do what you ask
have already moved on precisely because the EoL has been published.
i.e., faced with that limited commitment, we had no choice but to
(grudgingly and at the last
Lots of knashing of the teeth on this one but lets face it, it had to
die sometime. For all the 4.x users still out there (and plenty of
them have deep pockets) no reason you can't just hire third party
support (possibly even a current developer); hell get together and
maybe pool your resources.
At 12:42 AM +0200 10/12/06, Dan Lukes wrote:
As I'm not commiter, I'm allowed to submit PR and speak.
I'm trying both. This letter is speak part.
Understood.
But this has been announced for awhile. If the people who actually
depend on 4.x can find the resources to support it, I am
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:20:18 +0200 (CEST)
I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in
limited supply, but if you solicit
43 matches
Mail list logo
