Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:19:28PM -0400, John L. Scarfone wrote: On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:05:37AM +0200, Joachim Schipper stated: On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:09:20PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote: So, where do these commits go now ? To OPENBSD_3_9_BASE ? People say they received CD's. The CD's were burned with frozen OPENBSD_3_9_BASE. Right ? So, how one should follow -stable if commits aren't in -stable ? Wait for -stable to begin existing? It does exist. Ah, you're right. Sorry, I understood from someone else's posting that it didn't. (hint: sendmail bug). Thanks for hint. It rings some bells, but poorly. I can't recall the details. What rel was then ? I can't find it on google. It was a couple of days ago. It was fixed in -current, 3.7 and 3.8, though, so fixing it in 3.9 might not be too difficult. It was fixed. First time I've seen it happen before official release though. Well, security problems just before releases are not that common. ;-) Anyway, to answer the original question: download a src.tgz from somewhere, the 3.8 version from your local mirror should do, and cvs up it to OPENBSD_3_9. And, just to reiterate for the benefit of those who have not seen it yet: no, a source-code upgrade from 3.8 to 3.9 is not supported. 3.9-release - 3.9-stable should work, though. Joachim
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
Hi 2006-04-14, 10:37:47, you wrote: On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:19:28PM -0400, John L. Scarfone wrote: On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:05:37AM +0200, Joachim Schipper stated: On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:09:20PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote: So, where do these commits go now ? To OPENBSD_3_9_BASE ? People say they received CD's. The CD's were burned with frozen OPENBSD_3_9_BASE. Right ? So, how one should follow -stable if commits aren't in -stable ? [...] (hint: sendmail bug). Thanks for hint. It rings some bells, but poorly. I can't recall the details. What rel was then ? I can't find it on google. It was a couple of days ago. It was fixed in -current, 3.7 and 3.8, though, so fixing it in 3.9 might not be too difficult. It was fixed. First time I've seen it happen before official release though. Well, security problems just before releases are not that common. ;-) If I understand this right. This commit is in OPENBSD_3_9_BASE in cvs but it's not on CD's. Isn't it ? Anyway, to answer the original question: download a src.tgz from somewhere, the 3.8 version from your local mirror should do, and cvs up it to OPENBSD_3_9. Instead of this, can I checkout full src with tag OPENBSD_3_9_BASE ? The result should be the same. -- Regards Piotrek Kapczuk
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
Piotrek Kapczuk wrote: ... It was fixed. First time I've seen it happen before official release though. Well, security problems just before releases are not that common. ;-) If I understand this right. This commit is in OPENBSD_3_9_BASE in cvs but it's not on CD's. Isn't it ? n... Anyway, to answer the original question: download a src.tgz from somewhere, the 3.8 version from your local mirror should do, and cvs up it to OPENBSD_3_9. Instead of this, can I checkout full src with tag OPENBSD_3_9_BASE ? The result should be the same. N... http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/libsm/fflush.c OPENBSD_3_9_BASE is tagged...and that's it. (well..usually. I'm sure there's some exception somewhere...) The patches were put into OPENBSD_3_9 (a.k.a., stable), it turns out. That's not at all usual, and rather surprised me. Apparently, this is a Special Case. Nick.
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On 4/14/06, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/libsm/fflush.c OPENBSD_3_9_BASE is tagged...and that's it. (well..usually. I'm sure there's some exception somewhere...) The patches were put into OPENBSD_3_9 (a.k.a., stable), it turns out. That's not at all usual, and rather surprised me. Apparently, this is a Special Case. No. All patches past the _BASE tag always go into -STABLE. In this case, correctly into OPENBSD_3_9. This is not special AFAIK.
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:16:17PM +0200, Srebrenko Sehic wrote: On 4/14/06, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/gnu/usr.sbin/sendmail/libsm/fflush.c OPENBSD_3_9_BASE is tagged...and that's it. (well..usually. I'm sure there's some exception somewhere...) The patches were put into OPENBSD_3_9 (a.k.a., stable), it turns out. That's not at all usual, and rather surprised me. Apparently, this is a Special Case. No. All patches past the _BASE tag always go into -STABLE. In this case, correctly into OPENBSD_3_9. This is not special AFAIK. *sigh* HELLO... Topic is WHEN they go in. 3.9 is not official yet. This patch set went into -stable already. That *is* unusual. Nick.
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On 4/14/06, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. All patches past the _BASE tag always go into -STABLE. In this case, correctly into OPENBSD_3_9. This is not special AFAIK. *sigh* HELLO... Topic is WHEN they go in. 3.9 is not official yet. This patch set went into -stable already. That *is* unusual. So you say that the patch should go into OPENBSD_3_9 branch after 3.9 is *officially* released? Well, I wonder how people who pre-orded their CDs, got them, installed 3.9-RELEASE and run Sendmail are going to patch their systems? Wait for 3.9 to hit FTP mirrors? No. They sync to -rOPENBSD_3_9 and get the patch.
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
So you say that the patch should go into OPENBSD_3_9 branch after 3.9 is *officially* released? Well, I wonder how people who pre-orded their CDs, got them, installed 3.9-RELEASE and run Sendmail are going to patch their systems? I got 3.8 almost 2 weeks early, and seem to remember applying -stable that day, (though I don't believe there were needful security patches at the time). What I would have found unusual is to not have security patches applied to the tree. Just because upgrading via CVS will most likely hose your system, doesn't mean that once upgraded properly it shouldn't be available. CDs went out almost a month early this time around, which would have made for an awkward situation, even with the manual patches available.
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On 2006.04.14, at 11:05 PM, Srebrenko Sehic wrote: Well, I wonder how people who pre-orded their CDs, got them, installed 3.9-RELEASE and run Sendmail are going to patch their systems? Use the source code from the CD's themselves and then download the patch from http://www.openbsd.org/errata.html and apply?
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
Hi Nick, Nick Holland wrote on Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 09:24:29PM -0400: Ted Unangst wrote: yeah, except i think what nick was getting at was that upgrading via source is going to be bad, upgrading via sets is easy. yeah, and one of these days, Nick will learn what everyone else has long figured out: don't give long, detailed answers, No. Please do not learn that. I suspect many people read your postings because they contain lots of useful information and are fun to read. For example, i read part of them even when i'm not interested in the OP's question or know an answer to it. There are already lots of people around in the habit of giving short, useful answers (useful if you understand what they mean, that is ;). Like Ted. Thanks, Ingo
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
yeah, and one of these days, Nick will learn what everyone else has long figured out: don't give long, detailed answers, as someone will try to pick it apart and take it out of context, analyzing the text as if it were a fine novel, rather than a quick I need a break from helping people at work, let's see if I can help someone on the mail list posting. Some people read things like lawyers and look for things to pick apart, but some might have been genuinely confused. John
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
Hi 2006-04-13, 03:24:29, you wrote: Ted Unangst wrote: On 4/12/06, Geof Crowl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this: If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely unsupported. [...] yeah, and one of these days, Nick will learn what everyone else has long figured out: don't give long, detailed answers, as someone will try to pick it apart and take it out of context, analyzing the text as if it were a fine novel, rather than a quick I need a break from helping people at work, let's see if I can help someone on the mail list posting. No, no, no. Don't you dare ! ;) Your answer was perfect. Long enough. It's not your fault that someone reads too fast. [...] Nick Holland wrote: No, you completely ignored the Install or upgrade to closest available binary step. You can't do that. I based on http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade39.html There isn't any explicit sentence which says I can't do it. I guess I've misunderstood Upgrading without install media. I thought it says it's not absolutely necessary to have install sets. I was hoping I can build them by 'make release'. Hey, you can build it on your own just read FAQ 5 - Building the system from source ;) No I know I was wrong, and I know _why_. My mistake. Thank you very much Nick for willing to explain, and for willing to give solutions. Last questions. [...] Further, what happens if there is a critical security issue in 3.9-rel before 3.9 is officially released? -stable commits do NOT get made until 3.9 is official So, where do these commits go now ? To OPENBSD_3_9_BASE ? People say they received CD's. The CD's were burned with frozen OPENBSD_3_9_BASE. Right ? So, how one should follow -stable if commits aren't in -stable ? (hint: sendmail bug). Thanks for hint. It rings some bells, but poorly. I can't recall the details. What rel was then ? I can't find it on google. -- Regards Piotrek Kapczuk
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 08:09:20PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote: Hi 2006-04-13, 03:24:29, you wrote: Ted Unangst wrote: On 4/12/06, Geof Crowl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this: If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely unsupported. [...] yeah, and one of these days, Nick will learn what everyone else has long figured out: don't give long, detailed answers, as someone will try to pick it apart and take it out of context, analyzing the text as if it were a fine novel, rather than a quick I need a break from helping people at work, let's see if I can help someone on the mail list posting. No, no, no. Don't you dare ! ;) Your answer was perfect. Long enough. It's not your fault that someone reads too fast. [...] Nick Holland wrote: No, you completely ignored the Install or upgrade to closest available binary step. You can't do that. I based on http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade39.html There isn't any explicit sentence which says I can't do it. I guess I've misunderstood Upgrading without install media. I thought it says it's not absolutely necessary to have install sets. I was hoping I can build them by 'make release'. Hey, you can build it on your own just read FAQ 5 - Building the system from source ;) No I know I was wrong, and I know _why_. My mistake. Thank you very much Nick for willing to explain, and for willing to give solutions. Last questions. [...] Further, what happens if there is a critical security issue in 3.9-rel before 3.9 is officially released? -stable commits do NOT get made until 3.9 is official So, where do these commits go now ? To OPENBSD_3_9_BASE ? People say they received CD's. The CD's were burned with frozen OPENBSD_3_9_BASE. Right ? So, how one should follow -stable if commits aren't in -stable ? Wait for -stable to begin existing? (hint: sendmail bug). Thanks for hint. It rings some bells, but poorly. I can't recall the details. What rel was then ? I can't find it on google. It was a couple of days ago. It was fixed in -current, 3.7 and 3.8, though, so fixing it in 3.9 might not be too difficult. Joachim
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:03:58PM +0200, Piotrek Kapczuk wrote: Hi I have a new server to deploy and I don't want to wait unlit official release. So I'd like to compile 3.9 stable from source and I've faced a problem. I have a machine which runs 3.8-stable I've wiped out /usr/src then, as http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html says I did No, you completely ignored the Install or upgrade to closest available binary step. You can't do that. If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely unsupported. This looks like it will be a particularly difficult jump to make this release (though, as I recall, that's been true for a LOT of releases lately). You can't just download a new release's source and build on an old release. Further, what happens if there is a critical security issue in 3.9-rel before 3.9 is officially released? -stable commits do NOT get made until 3.9 is official (hint: sendmail bug). Your choices: 1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually, pretty easy). 2) start with 3.9-current, and then jump to 4.0-stable in about seven months or so, when it becomes available. This could be either very easy or a pain in the butt, depending on how many additional packages you end up installing after first install. Nick.
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this: If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely unsupported. and this: 1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually, pretty easy). totally contradictory?
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Geof Crowl wrote: Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this: If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely unsupported. and this: 1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually, pretty easy). totally contradictory? First case is source upgrade, second is binary upgrade. That's the difference Nick is talking about. -Otto
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:34:55PM -0400, Geof Crowl wrote: | Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this: | | | If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But | jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely | unsupported. | | | and this: | | | 1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually, pretty easy). | | | totally contradictory? You miss (relevant) parts of Nicks e-mail. Jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 (by source) is not supported. *UPGRADING* 3.8 to 3.9 IS supported. Please read the original mail again, it's actually quite clear. Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- [++-]+++.+++[---].+++[+ +++-].++[-]+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On 4/12/06, Geof Crowl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this: If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely unsupported. [building 3.9 source on 3.8] and this: 1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually, pretty easy). [install 3.9 binaries] totally contradictory? yeah, except i think what nick was getting at was that upgrading via source is going to be bad, upgrading via sets is easy.
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:34:55PM -0400, Geof Crowl wrote: If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely unsupported. and this: 1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually, pretty easy). totally contradictory? No. The first one means building 3.9 from source (on top of 3.8), the second one is about a binary update from 3.8 to 3.9. Ciao, Kili
Re: OpenBSD 3.9 stable from cvs
Ted Unangst wrote: On 4/12/06, Geof Crowl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless I am reading something wrong, isn't this: If you had started from a 3.9-beta, you might have got lucky. But jumping from 3.8 to 3.9 is NOT an easy process, and is completely unsupported. [building 3.9 source on 3.8] and this: 1) Start with 3.8, and upgrade to 3.9 later (actually, pretty easy). [install 3.9 binaries] totally contradictory? yeah, except i think what nick was getting at was that upgrading via source is going to be bad, upgrading via sets is easy. yeah, and one of these days, Nick will learn what everyone else has long figured out: don't give long, detailed answers, as someone will try to pick it apart and take it out of context, analyzing the text as if it were a fine novel, rather than a quick I need a break from helping people at work, let's see if I can help someone on the mail list posting. Yes: Upgrading from source = difficult, if even possible by ordinary people, and certainly not supported by developers. Upgrading by binaries = easy. Nick.
