On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 28 April 2015 at 23:31, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> > 3) Is there any desire from the users to see newer {Free,Net,Open}BSD
> than
> > presently in gcc76's set of VMs?
>
> I've found the BSDs are easy to run in a local VM, although it would
> certainly be nice if they were available on faster cfarm h/w.
>
> N.B. GCC also supports Dragonfly BSD now, and that runs well in a VM.
>
> I have root on gcc70 so could upgrade that to a newer NetBSD if the
> people using it would prefer a newer version. I might need simple
> instructions though, I find the pkg mgt stuff on NetBSD a real pain.
>
For a binary upgrade of NetBSD the recommendation is to boot from the
installation media.
That is going to be a pain if you lack physical access.
The installer's "upgrade" option installs a new instance of the base system
(a handful of tarballs) over the old system.
It does provide help preserving/merging your configuration files.
Instructions for updating are at
https://www.netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/chap-upgrading.html
That covers the base system which lives outside the pkg management -
updating your external packages would be an additional step, IIRC.
However, that should be just "sudo pkgin fug" (fug = full-upgrade), again
IIRC.
Note that at the very of the page I reference above is a short blurb about
"sysupgrade" as a live binary upgrade alternative.
It mentions it being "new", but that is from Aug 2012. I *have* used it
successfully, but your results may vary.
All of that said, I agree with Vincent Lefevre who said earlier in this
thread
"Having access to both old and new versions would be useful."
However, gcc76 does have VMs for both NetBSD 5.1.2 and 6.0 - so updating
gcc70 from 5.1 is not a "big loss" IMHO.
So, updating cfarm's only bare-metal NetBSD system (gcc70) gets a +1 from
me.
> 4) Is there any desire from the users to see Solaris on x86-64 (either VM
> or
> > bare metal)?
>
> Solaris and Darwin are the targets I most often wish I could test on.
>
[...snip...]
They are, unfortunately, the hardest to virtualize in my experience.
For my own Darwin testing I have a collection of used Mac Minis and laptops
covering each of the 10.x releases since 10.4.
> Before somebody jumps on me:
> >
> > I am *not* trying to push more work on the CFarm admin(s).
> > In fact, if there is interest in #2 or #3, I may be able to help by
> > providing drive images I use on my own system now.
> > If there is interest in #4, Oracle provides pre-packed installers for use
> > with VirtualBox.
>
> Yeah, I couldn't get that to work on my Fedora machine and gave up.
>
I have VirtualBox on my Mac laptop and have seen no problems with
Solaris-11.2 within that.
Note that Solaris-11.x is known NOT work in QEMU or KVM (tests with ping
show network can send but not recv).
As the owner of both projects/products, Oracle actually recommends (and
supports?) Solaris within VirtualBox.
Unfortunately KVM, Xen and VirtualBox are all mutually exclusive -
requiring you to dedicate a host to running VirtualBox.
-Paul
--
Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov
Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group
Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
_______________________________________________
Gcc-cfarm-users mailing list
Gcc-cfarm-users@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gcc-cfarm-users
