On 3/17/10, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
snip
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 04:56:20PM +0300, ?? ?? typed:
I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw
it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD
on it.
# uname -a
FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri
2010/3/18 Ruben de Groot mai...@bzerk.org
As others have said, it's a RELEASE candidate. But this kernel it's running
was compiled earlier this month (March 5).
Ruben
It is OK, course I have compiled my own kernel by commenting-out unused
devices in GENERIC kernconf-file. Sources was
18 марта 2010 г. 10:49 пользователь Tim Judd taj...@gmail.com написал:
On 3/17/10, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is
production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:56:20 +0300, Антон Клесс
antoniok@gmail.com wrote:
I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I
saw
it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed
FreeBSD
on it.
# uname -a
FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
2010/3/17 Bas v.d. Wiel b...@kompasmedia.nl
On Wed, 17 Mar
On 17/03/2010 14:45, Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
2010/3/17 Bas
Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
If it works, do not fix it!
Actually,
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:36:38 +0100, Mikolaj Rydzewski m...@ceti.pl wrote:
Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is
production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17.03.2010 18:03, Bas v.d. Wiel wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:36:38 +0100, Mikolaj Rydzewski m...@ceti.pl wrote:
Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is
production
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote:
I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw
it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD
on it.
# uname -a
FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4:
Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
Depending on what your requirements for
2010/3/17 Ricardo Jesus ricardo.meb.je...@gmail.com
It should be 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 - 6.4 - 7.2 - 8.0
Dont' think freebsd-update supports 6.2 (AFAIR it supports from 6.4
onwards), so you probably will have to use csup.
freebsd-update was available from 6.2, so there is a good chance it should
be
On 10/28/05, Micah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kirchner wrote:
On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would
On 10/27/05, Joshua Tinnin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable,
Andrew P. wrote:
On 10/27/05, Joshua Tinnin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
Consider diff'ing the
Will Maier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
Will Maier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:36:18AM -0700, Micah wrote:
In other words, it's not file that broken, but /every/ executable
on the broken machine is broken. Now why would that be? A
compiler flag or something?
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised
On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the
discrepancy. Didn't see anything in quick looks through
David Kirchner wrote:
On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the
discrepancy. Didn't see anything in
On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
without COMPAT* in the kernel?
file (1)
I don't mean to push it, but how file would ever help
me to know subj?
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:01, Andrew P. wrote:
On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
without COMPAT* in the kernel?
file (1)
I don't mean to
On 10/26/05, Michael C. Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:01, Andrew P. wrote:
On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked
(uses shared libs), stripped
Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked
(uses shared libs), stripped
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version
1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
without COMPAT* in the kernel?
file (1)
One can always carefully examine the output of ldd, readelf and
other such tools, but that requires much knowledge and a small
I really believe the choose would depend on your requirements and your
experience. If you are new to open source Unix-like environment then you
should not use either in version in a production environment unless you can
afford the cost associated with learning a new system. Do not under
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:54:56AM +0200, lists wrote:
Currently were going to reinstall all servers we have from redhat 9 to
freebsd because redhat 9 is EOL...
But after reading a few mails here that 4.9 is most likely not supported
for a long time.. what version should we take then?
Looks
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:54:56AM +0200, lists wrote:
Currently were going to reinstall all servers we have from redhat 9 to
freebsd because redhat 9 is EOL...
But after reading a few mails here that 4.9 is most likely not supported
for a long time.. what version should we take then?
32 matches
Mail list logo
