Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:makeinstallworld error))
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 09:28 am, Charles Ulrich wrote: > epilogue said: > >> Just out of curiosity, is it incorrect to simply say that ports build > >> packages? > > > > Yes. > > Well, now I've received one explicit "yes" answer and one explicit "no" > answer to this question, leading me to believe that there might not be a > clear consensus even among experienced FreeBSD users. (I count myself as > one also.) It's possible that we're splitting hairs with all of this, but > splitting hairs is what explanation is all about. Maybe because you used a negative (incorrect) instead of a positive (correct)? I had to read the above exchange three times before I realized he was saying, yes it is incorrect. I thought he was agreeing, originally. No, it is not incorrect.yes, it is correct.to say that FreeBSD ports build FreeBSD packages. The last thing a FreeBSD port does is register itself as a loaded package. You can run pkg_info() and see that your port has been installed on the system. Furthermore, I agree with the original email stating that ports v package is confusing terminology for people new to FreeBSD. As pointed out by a subsequent post, the documented explanation is quite clear. However, it would be nice to use terminology that was "prima facia" obvious. Unfortunately, what is "obvious" is usually in the mind of the beholder. Personally, I would prefer "port" and "binary". Or maybe "port" and "ready-to-load". I've never understood how the work "package" was an obvious indicator that the contents were pre-compiled and ready to load. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:make installworld error))
Lowell Gilbert said: > If you think you see specific places to improve the documentation, > please write it up and submit it in a Problem Report. FreeBSD is, > after all, a volunteer project...;2~ That would probably be a better use of my time than grousing about it on a mailing list, so I think I shall. Thanks for the clarifications. -- Charles Ulrich System Administrator Ideal Solution - http://www.idealso.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:makeinstallworld error))
epilogue said: >> Just out of curiosity, is it incorrect to simply say that ports build >> packages? > > Yes. Well, now I've received one explicit "yes" answer and one explicit "no" answer to this question, leading me to believe that there might not be a clear consensus even among experienced FreeBSD users. (I count myself as one also.) It's possible that we're splitting hairs with all of this, but splitting hairs is what explanation is all about. > For any given application, the FreeBSD >>> package <<< for that > application is a >>> single file <<< which you must download. The package > contains >>> pre-compiled <<< copies of all the commands for the > application, as well as any configuration files or documentation. A > downloaded package file can be manipulated with FreeBSD package management > commands, such as pkg_add(1), pkg_delete(1), pkg_info(1), and so on. > Installing a new application can be carried out with a single command. > > FreeBSD >>> port <<< for an application is a >>> collection of files <<< > designed to >>> automate the process of compiling <<< an application from source code <<<. What this leaves out is the state of the software after it has already been installed. Lowell Gilbert confirmed my assumption that whether you install a piece of software via a port or via package, they are indistinguisable from each other on the system AFTER they've been installed. That is to say, you can install a port and then operate on it with the pkg_* commands, even though it was not installed as a package. Hence the assertion that "ports build packages," even though it looks like it may be technically incorrect to refer to post-installed software as "packages" since one has no way of telling how the software was installed after the fact. > the fbsd handbook is one of the very best in *nixland. please pay it the > attention it deserves. Believe me, I do. Indeed, I could hardly do my job without it. Thanks for your time. -- Charles Ulrich System Administrator Ideal Solution - http://www.idealso.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:make installworld error))
Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That phrase -- "ports build packages" is just so right on so many > levels. Except for the literal description of what actually happens. It seems that a lot of the supposed confusion of novices comes from the fact that we don't have a separate word to refer to a port or package *after* it has been installed. People make a naive assumption that the "package database" has something to do with packages but not with ports... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:make installworld error))
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0700, Jay O'Brien wrote: > Charles Ulrich wrote: > > > The phrase "ports > > build packages" is a neat and efficient way of rectifying the > > misunderstandings that can occur when trying to give a proper > > explanation of FreeBSD package management. > Thank you for concisely answering a burning question I didn't > know how to ask. I had gathered the concept that if I built a > "port" I was stuck with it, because it couldn't be removed as > easily as something installed as a package. That phrase -- "ports build packages" is just so right on so many levels. Except for the literal description of what actually happens. If I was feeling pedantic, I'd say "ports build and install software, and also create a packaging list. A package is simply a shortcut method of using that packaging list to gather together all of those files into an archive in order to copy them to a different machine." But it really doesn't have the same ring to it. Most people know that to build a package you simply change to the correct ports directory and type: # make package Which is fine and dandy most of the time. What deserves to be more widely known is that you can create a package fron any already installed port: # pkg_create -b pkg-name which saves a lot of effort trying to recompile things and is a really handy way to back stuff up. As it stands, you can't make a package without also installing the corresponding port. For many reasons it would be very handy to avoid that: ie. to be able to install the port into a chroot'ed area and assemble the package from there. Avoids conflicts with already installed ports or the need to de-install and re-install a port if you want a different set of options for the package. Also a lot of the time it would make it feasible to build packages as a mortal user, rather than requiring root access. This has been discussed on several occasions in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, and there are various patch sets floating around. As I understand it though, quite a lot of ports would need remedial work if that functionality was to be introduced, which is what has kept anything from being committed yet. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgpZ9V0Yf82nj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:make installworld error))
"Charles Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just out of curiosity, is it incorrect to simply say that ports build > packages? No, packages are indeed built from ports. > That is, once a piece of software is installed with 'make install', > is it treated the same as any package that was installed from the installation > CD? Not only are they handled the same, but once installed, they are completely indistinguishable. > (If not, or if the relationship is really a whole lot more complex than > that, then my rant below doesn't apply.) You understand it perfectly, except for the fact that the noun "package" is often used to refer to a tar file which can be fed to pkg_add(1). > A lot of new users can't readily tell the difference between a port and > package and frequently use the two terms interchangably. The handbook gives an > overview of both ports and package but stops short of clearly spelling out > this important distinction. You mean where it says: For any given application, the FreeBSD package for that application is a single file which you must download. The package contains pre-compiled copies of all the commands for the application, as well as any configuration files or documentation. A downloaded package file can be manipulated with FreeBSD package management commands, such as pkg_add(1), pkg_delete(1), pkg_info(1), and so on. Installing a new application can be carried out with a single command. A FreeBSD port for an application is a collection of files designed to automate the process of compiling an application from source code. That seems pretty clear about the distinction to me. > But at the same time, it also implies that ports > and packages are two completely separate ways of installing software when in > reality they are actually two parts of the same system. I'd say that they're actually two different ways of accessing the same database; a slight difference of emphasis... > The phrase "ports > build packages" is a neat and efficient way of rectifying the > misunderstandings that can occur when trying to give a proper explanation of > FreeBSD package management. A quick search on the FAQ and Handbook gives me the impression that most generic references discuss installing from "ports and(/or) packages" rather than one or the other. If you think you see specific places to improve the documentation, please write it up and submit it in a Problem Report. FreeBSD is, after all, a volunteer project...;2~ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:make installworld error))
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:47:03 -0400 (EDT) "Charles Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lowell Gilbert said: > > In FreeBSD, a "port" is a third-party application ported to be built > > from > source on your system. A "package" is a pre-compiled binary of that > port. Once installed, they are both tracked (and removable) by the same > database, usually referred to as the "package database". See the FreeBSD > Handbook section on "Installing Applications: Packages and Ports" for a > full explanation. > > Just out of curiosity, is it incorrect to simply say that ports build > packages? Yes. > That is, once a piece of software is installed with 'make install', > is it treated the same as any package that was installed from the > installation CD? (If not, or if the relationship is really a whole lot > more complex than that, then my rant below doesn't apply.) > > A lot of new users can't readily tell the difference between a port and > package and frequently use the two terms interchangably. mostly the users who: a) don't bother to read the handbook b) read the handbook too quickly (ie. skim it) c) read the handbook in a language which isn't their own d) other... (feel free to add your own variations ;) > The handbook gives an overview of both ports and package but stops > short of clearly spelling out this important distinction. Taken directly from our beloved handbook: "4.2 Overview of Software Installation If you have used a UNIX® system before you will know that the typical procedure for installing third party software goes something like this: 1. Download the software, which might be distributed in source code format, or as a binary. 2. Unpack the software from its distribution format(typically a tarball compressed with compress(1), gzip(1), or bzip2(1)). 3. Locate the documentation (perhaps an INSTALL or README file, or some files in a doc/ subdirectory) and read up on how to install the software. 4. If the software was distributed in source format, compile it. This may involve editing a Makefile, or running a configure script, and other work. 5. Test and install the software. And that is only if everything goes well. If you are installing a software package that was not deliberately ported to FreeBSD you may even have to go in and edit the code to make it work properly. Should you want to, you can continue to install software the ``traditional'' way with FreeBSD. However, FreeBSD provides two technologies which can save you a lot of effort: packages and ports. At the time of writing, over 10,500 third party applications have been made available in this way. For any given application, the FreeBSD >>> package <<< for that application is a >>> single file <<< which you must download. The package contains >>> pre-compiled <<< copies of all the commands for the application, as well as any configuration files or documentation. A downloaded package file can be manipulated with FreeBSD package management commands, such as pkg_add(1), pkg_delete(1), pkg_info(1), and so on. Installing a new application can be carried out with a single command. FreeBSD >>> port <<< for an application is a >>> collection of files <<< designed to >>> automate the process of compiling <<< an application >>> from source code <<<. Remember that there are a number of steps you would normally carry out if you compiled a program yourself (downloading, unpacking, patching, compiling, installing). The files that make up a port contain all the necessary information to allow the system to do this for you." hope that this helps to clear up any confusion you might have had. cheers, epi > But at the same time, it also implies that ports and packages are two > completely separate ways of installing software when in reality they are > actually two parts of the same system. The phrase "ports build packages" > is a neat and efficient way of rectifying the misunderstandings that can > occur when trying to give a proper explanation of FreeBSD package > management. > > -- > Charles Ulrich > System Administrator the fbsd handbook is one of the very best in *nixland. please pay it the attention it deserves. > Ideal Solution - http://www.idealso.com > > > > -- > Charles Ulrich > System Administrator > Ideal Solution - http://www.idealso.com > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:make installworld error))
Charles Ulrich wrote: > The phrase "ports > build packages" is a neat and efficient way of rectifying the > misunderstandings that can occur when trying to give a proper > explanation of FreeBSD package management. > Charles, Thank you for concisely answering a burning question I didn't know how to ask. I had gathered the concept that if I built a "port" I was stuck with it, because it couldn't be removed as easily as something installed as a package. Jay O'Brien ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re:make installworld error))
Lowell Gilbert said: > In FreeBSD, a "port" is a third-party application ported to be built from source on your system. A "package" is a pre-compiled binary of that port. Once installed, they are both tracked (and removable) by the same database, usually referred to as the "package database". See the FreeBSD Handbook section on "Installing Applications: Packages and Ports" for a full explanation. Just out of curiosity, is it incorrect to simply say that ports build packages? That is, once a piece of software is installed with 'make install', is it treated the same as any package that was installed from the installation CD? (If not, or if the relationship is really a whole lot more complex than that, then my rant below doesn't apply.) A lot of new users can't readily tell the difference between a port and package and frequently use the two terms interchangably. The handbook gives an overview of both ports and package but stops short of clearly spelling out this important distinction. But at the same time, it also implies that ports and packages are two completely separate ways of installing software when in reality they are actually two parts of the same system. The phrase "ports build packages" is a neat and efficient way of rectifying the misunderstandings that can occur when trying to give a proper explanation of FreeBSD package management. -- Charles Ulrich System Administrator Ideal Solution - http://www.idealso.com -- Charles Ulrich System Administrator Ideal Solution - http://www.idealso.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re: make installworld error))
Curtis Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am now going to try again. I am installing v. 4.8 on a server.
> This server is to be a Postfix w/Courier IMAP server integrated into a
> Linux-based network, authentication centralized using PAM & LDAP.
> That's about it.
>
> Now, some people might say, don't install 4.8 go straight for 5.x.
> The reason I am doing this, however, is because I want to not only
> know how to perform upgrades, but I want hands on experience. So,
> hopefully I am not making this too difficult for me.
Upgrades across major-version boundaries are not recommended for
novices. Furthermore, FreeBSD is currently in the process of moving
the "STABLE" branch from 4.x to 5.x, so there aren't many updates
going into 5.x right now.
> Finally, while I'm reinstalling 4.8, I would like to know something
> about the following.
> It seems to me that cvsup is actually downloading the entire
> repository of packages for FreeBSD. Is that really what one has to do
> to perform an upgrade? It seems like what you would need to do is
> merely upgrade those packages necessary for the latest kernel, then
> upgrade the kernel, then upgrade all installed packages. (Packages
> meaning ports, right?)
You're using Linux terminology, I think. To start with, remember,
that FreeBSD is not just a kernel -- it's an entire working operating
system, and you upgrade all of those ("base system") parts together.
That's why "buildworld", "buildkernel", "installkernel", and
"installworld" are all part of the same upgrade procedure (which
includes several other steps as well).
In FreeBSD, a "port" is a third-party application ported to be built
from source on your system. A "package" is a pre-compiled binary of
that port. Once installed, they are both tracked (and removable) by
the same database, usually referred to as the "package database". See
the FreeBSD Handbook section on "Installing Applications: Packages and
Ports" for a full explanation.
So you don't update ports or packages in order to update your base
system, but you may need to update them afterwards (usually
/usr/ports/UPDATING will warn you when this sort of thing occurs; it's
quite rare aside from the "bleeding edge."
Which brings us to what cvsup actually gets you: a collection of
files. What those files are depends on which collection you configure
cvsup to get for you, but the two primary collections are: "src-all",
which is all of the source files (normally kept under /usr/src) needed
to build the base system; and "ports-all", which is the whole
collection of makefiles and local patches (normally kept under
/usr/ports) needed to download the source of, compile, and install the
third-party applications.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Reinstalling, then upgrading
On 23 Aug, 2004, at 13:16, Robert Huff wrote: Curtis Vaughan writes: Finally, while I'm reinstalling 4.8, I would like to know something about the following. It seems to me that cvsup is actually downloading the entire repository of packages for FreeBSD. Is that really what one has to do to perform an upgrade? Cvsup updates what you tell it to update - if you ask correctly, as little as a single file. It seems like what you would need to do is merely upgrade those packages necessary for the latest kernel, "world". then upgrade the kernel, "kernel". then upgrade all installed packages. (Packages meaning ports, right?) "ports". And that's right, except Once you've installed the ports tree (say from CD) do one run of cvsup to bring the tree up to date. This may be a fairly large update, but will not be everything because some ports haven't changed in years. Afterwards, you can run another update once a week, or once a month. (Once a month is stretching it, because some popular ports get updated very frequently.) If there are parts of the ports tree you don't care about (e.g. vietnamese or mbone) there are ways to tell cvsup to ignore that entire sub-tree. Did this answer your question? (And if not, can you be more specific?) Robert Huff I think so for now. Thanks! Curtis ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Reinstalling, then upgrading
Curtis Vaughan writes: > Finally, while I'm reinstalling 4.8, I would like to know > something about the following. > It seems to me that cvsup is actually downloading the entire > repository of packages for FreeBSD. Is that really what one has > to do to perform an upgrade? Cvsup updates what you tell it to update - if you ask correctly, as little as a single file. > It seems like what you would need > to do is merely upgrade those packages necessary for the latest > kernel, "world". > then upgrade the kernel, "kernel". >then upgrade all > installed > packages. (Packages meaning ports, right?) "ports". And that's right, except Once you've installed the ports tree (say from CD) do one run of cvsup to bring the tree up to date. This may be a fairly large update, but will not be everything because some ports haven't changed in years. Afterwards, you can run another update once a week, or once a month. (Once a month is stretching it, because some popular ports get updated very frequently.) If there are parts of the ports tree you don't care about (e.g. vietnamese or mbone) there are ways to tell cvsup to ignore that entire sub-tree. Did this answer your question? (And if not, can you be more specific?) Robert Huff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Reinstalling, then upgrading
Curtis Vaughan writes: > Finally, while I'm reinstalling 4.8, I would like to know > something about the following. > It seems to me that cvsup is actually downloading the entire > repository of packages for FreeBSD. Is that really what one has > to do to perform an upgrade? Cvsup updates what you tell it to update - if you ask correctly, as little as a single file. > It seems like what you would need > to do is merely upgrade those packages necessary for the latest > kernel, "world". > then upgrade the kernel, "kernel". >then upgrade all > installed > packages. (Packages meaning ports, right?) "ports". And that's right, except Once you've installed the ports tree (say from CD) do one run of cvsup to bring the tree up to date. This may be a fairly large update, but will not be everything because some ports haven't changed in years. Afterwards, you can run another update once a week, or once a month. (Once a month is stretching it, because some popular ports get updated very frequently.) If there are parts of the ports tree you don't care about (e.g. vietnamese or mbone) there are ways to tell cvsup to ignore that entire sub-tree. Did this answer your question? (And if not, can you be more specific?) Robert Huff ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Reinstalling, then upgrading (Was Re: Salvageable? (Was Re: make installworld error))
Thanks to everyone who has been answering my questions over the past several days (weeks) concerning installing and upgrading FreeBSD. I am now going to try again. I am installing v. 4.8 on a server. This server is to be a Postfix w/Courier IMAP server integrated into a Linux-based network, authentication centralized using PAM & LDAP. That's about it. Now, some people might say, don't install 4.8 go straight for 5.x. The reason I am doing this, however, is because I want to not only know how to perform upgrades, but I want hands on experience. So, hopefully I am not making this too difficult for me. Finally, while I'm reinstalling 4.8, I would like to know something about the following. It seems to me that cvsup is actually downloading the entire repository of packages for FreeBSD. Is that really what one has to do to perform an upgrade? It seems like what you would need to do is merely upgrade those packages necessary for the latest kernel, then upgrade the kernel, then upgrade all installed packages. (Packages meaning ports, right?) Thanks again! Curtis On 23 Aug, 2004, at 11:10, Steven Friedrich wrote: On Monday 23 August 2004 01:58 pm, Curtis Vaughan wrote: On 23 Aug, 2004, at 10:51, Steven Friedrich wrote: On Monday 23 August 2004 01:39 pm, Curtis Vaughan wrote: So, could someone tell me if my system is salvageable or not and what I need to do? Or, should I just start over? Curtis On 21 Aug, 2004, at 17:06, Curtis Vaughan wrote: So, it is my understanding that I did in fact do things right (or that is to say that The Complete FreeBSD had the right directions. But that something else went wrong. BTW, I installed 4.8 from scratch. Then spent a couple of days preparing to do a cvsup making sure that I set everything up right (sources: Complete FreeBSD, freebsd.org, and this list. Then I did the cvsup. Everything else I've already written about in a previous letter. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that booting into an old kernel is an option. I have looked at the files on my system and there is no kernel.old or anything like it. There is only a kernel directory under the /boot/ directory. What information do I need to provide to perhaps salvage this system? And what steps did I possibly miss? Curtis "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Yup. Go back to the top --- I missed where in your list of steps you actually *installed* the new kernel... That would be where he said: make kernel which is equivalent to "make buildkernel installkernel". It doesn't explain quite what's happening here, though -- and he didn't even *hint* at such basic clues as what version he was updating from or to (there may be extra steps for large updating jumps). Booting the old kernel is certainly worth a try before starting over, though; the system is quite likely to be salvageable. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Try to boot into single-user mode, i.e., when the system boots, it'll display a 10 second countdown. Hit spacebar to abort the countdown. Then type boot -s and it'll boot into single-user mode with only the root partition mounted. type mount -a to get the other partitions mounted. Then redo your buildworld,etc., but skip mergemaster stuff. Here's the steps: cd /usr/src make buildworld make buildkernel KERNCONF=yourkernelname (you DID copy GENERIC and customize it didn't you?) make installkernel KERNCONF=yourkernelname make installworld reboot Skipping the mergemaster stuff will mean that any recent changes to various config files will be missing, but you should be able to come up multi-user. If these steps fail, it'll probably be easier to just reinstall. As I wrote in an earlier letter, I can't get into single-user mode. Here's what happens after using the boot -s option: It's asks: Enter full pathname of shell or RETURN for /bin/sh But when I hit RETURN, it says: pid 7 (ssh), uid -: exited on signal 12 Aug 20 08:41:58 init: single user shell terminated, restarting and then it asks again: Enter full path I have tried also manually entering in: /bin/sh /bin/csh /bin/chsh /usr/local/bin/bash etc. etc. Curtis ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" unless you are expert enough to use FreeBSD boot and repair floppies, I recommend you just reinstall.
