On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:14 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
> UPDATING has the closest thing to a comprehensive guide. As far as I
> can tell, it is definitive in its list of potential issues, but if I'm
> wrong, let me know.
>
> I'm just glad I don't have to document all the things that mergem
If memory serves me right, Doug Barton wrote:
> This should go on the "Comprehensive guide to updating from source to 5.0"
> that I'm sure our trusty release engineers are producing?
Some of this is described in the early adopter's guide (still a work in
progress) that I committed to the release
IMO it's more a matter of POLA for those upgrading to -current for the
first time. For those that don't realize exactly how different 5.x is,
spelling out the steps of installing device.hints, installing the new
loader, etc. makes their life easier.
This should go on the "Comprehensive guide to up
< said:
> /boot/loader though is a different story. 'make installkernel' does not
> install the new loader. However, most non-ancient 4.x loaders can
> boot a 5.x kernel sufficiently well that this shouldn't be a crisis. Or,
> they used to be able to when I last tried it (not too long ago).
"M. Warner Losh" wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Peter Wemm wrote:
> :
> : > 'make installworld' without ... a new kernel would be rather messy.
> :
> : > ... a reminder of the sequence is probably in order:
> : > buildworld
> :
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:56:34AM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
> >Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >: ... 'installkernel' is not filling it's contract: it is
> >: not ensuring that the next boot uses the new kernel.
> >
> >Are you sure you need new bootblocks?
M. Warner Losh wrote:
Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: ... 'installkernel' is not filling it's contract: it is
: not ensuring that the next boot uses the new kernel.
Are you sure you need new bootblocks? I've not had issues and am
pretty careless about when I do installworld vs ins
Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Patrick Hartling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: HEADS UP: you need to install a new kernel before an installworld. ]
Peter Wemm wrote:
Due to sigaction(2) syscall number changes, doing a 'make installworld'
without hav
* De: Patrick Hartling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-28 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: HEADS UP: you need to install a new kernel before an
installworld. ]
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Due to sigaction(2) syscall number changes, doing a 'make installworld'
> > without h
Peter Wemm wrote:
Due to sigaction(2) syscall number changes, doing a 'make installworld'
without having booted a new kernel would be rather messy. For example, if
you tried to reboot with the old kernel, /sbin/init and /bin/sh would get a
signal and abort. That would be bad.
Does this apply to
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:42:02AM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> >'make installworld' without ... a new kernel would be rather messy.
>
> >... a reminder of the sequence is probably in order:
> > buildworld
> > buildkernel
> > installkernel
> > reboot
> > installworld
> > reb
Quoting Tim Kientzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| Peter Wemm wrote:
|
| > 'make installworld' without ... a new kernel would be rather messy.
|
| > ... a reminder of the sequence is probably in order:
| > buildworld
| > buildkernel
| > installkernel
| > reboot
| > installworld
| > reb
Peter Wemm wrote:
'make installworld' without ... a new kernel would be rather messy.
... a reminder of the sequence is probably in order:
buildworld
buildkernel
installkernel
reboot
installworld
reboot
This _does_not_work_ because 'installkernel' does
not update the bootblocks. It s
Due to sigaction(2) syscall number changes, doing a 'make installworld'
without having booted a new kernel would be rather messy. For example, if
you tried to reboot with the old kernel, /sbin/init and /bin/sh would get a
signal and abort. That would be bad.
I've added an anti-foot-shooting devic
14 matches
Mail list logo
