Hi,
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 23:16:58 -0800
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:55:49PM +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:55:04 -0800
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
ms well use my 2005 Thinkpad. it is reasonably fast at
guys,
I used my EEE-900a [[last year]] to wow the medical team downtown
with my unfinished VBC program. since nobody seems willing to
volunteer to test the (*almost*)-finished version, I figure I
ms well use my 2005 Thinkpad. it is reasonably fast at
I want the Gnome Desktop, espeak, and gvim. If there is a CD
or DVD with 9.x, can somebody give me a URL?
The usual place:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.1R/announce.html
I'm typing this on a Thinkpad X200, which works well under 9.0.
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:55:04 -0800
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
ms well use my 2005 Thinkpad. it is reasonably fast at
3.06GHz. should clue me in on how much stuff I need to compile to
test.
You should be able to run anything from 7.4, 8.3, 9.1 to 10.0.
I mention 7.4 here
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:55:49PM +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:55:04 -0800
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org wrote:
ms well use my 2005 Thinkpad. it is reasonably fast at
3.06GHz. should clue me in on how much stuff I need to compile to
test.
You should
List,
Is there an easy way to find out what version of PF a given FreeBSD version is
using? Currently I'm doing this:
grep -iE '\bpf\b' /usr/src/UPDATING
Just wondering if I'm missing something. I didn't see any '--version'
flag in pfctl.
-Modulok-
On 21/09/2011 07:34, Modulok wrote:
Is there an easy way to find out what version of PF a given FreeBSD version is
using? Currently I'm doing this:
grep -iE '\bpf\b' /usr/src/UPDATING
Just wondering if I'm missing something. I didn't see any '--version'
flag in pfctl.
Uh -- bpf is a
On 21/09/2011 08:34, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 21/09/2011 07:34, Modulok wrote:
Is there an easy way to find out what version of PF a given FreeBSD version
is
using? Currently I'm doing this:
grep -iE '\bpf\b' /usr/src/UPDATING
Just wondering if I'm missing something. I didn't see any
On 21 September 2011 09:05, Matthew Seaman
m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.ukwrote:
On 21/09/2011 08:34, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 21/09/2011 07:34, Modulok wrote:
Is there an easy way to find out what version of PF a given FreeBSD
version is
using? Currently I'm doing this:
grep -iE
On 21/09/2011 09:17, krad wrote:
If its been syncd to openbsd 4.5 version of pf, its still quite a way behind
openbsd's version in the latest release as they are not on 4.9 with 5.0
imminent. Looking at the docs there were quite a lot of changes when openbsd
was bumped to 4.7
Yes. However I
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
it in the way that Tim Judd taj...@gmail.com told, would be
much more quick and safe for my services running on this server now.
So the last question is which version (7.2 or 8.0) to choose. Am I right if
I say there would no problems with hardware compatibility on 8.0 if there
wasn't on 6.2
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 Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK
2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN
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
Vishal Kashyap vishal.vi...@gmail.com writes:
Respected Sir,
I am a MCA student. and i'd like to install FreeBSD for development purpose
on my system. But, I've no more information about hardware portion. So,
Please guide me about that. Here, I am sending you my System's hardware
profile;
Respected Sir,
I am a MCA student. and i'd like to install FreeBSD for development purpose
on my system. But, I've no more information about hardware portion. So,
Please guide me about that. Here, I am sending you my System's hardware
profile; which is,
AMD Athlon Dual Core 7750
Kingston 2 Gb
Hi,
I have been following the progress (well done so far everyone involved!)
on the Asus EEE PC Wiki pages, but had a quick question:
All the drivers committed/in development/done so far, will they be
included in Rel 7_1? Or would I need to keep tracking 7 stable, or even,
current (8.0?)
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 08:39:13PM -0600, Tim Judd wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 10:32 +0200, Christian Zachariasen wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Russell Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Do you have a version that will run with an AMD Sempron 3100+, 1.8Ghz, 32
bit,
Hi,
Do you have a version that will run with an AMD Sempron 3100+, 1.8Ghz,
32 bit, X86 family processor?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Russell Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Do you have a version that will run with an AMD Sempron 3100+, 1.8Ghz, 32
bit, X86 family processor?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 10:32 +0200, Christian Zachariasen wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Russell Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Do you have a version that will run with an AMD Sempron 3100+, 1.8Ghz, 32
bit, X86 family processor?
Please do some reading before asking
Hi:
So far I have managed to keep all on version 43 of Berkeley DB, I see
there is now 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6.
- Is there any way to find out which is the latest version all ports
will build against?
- Is there any reason to upgrade?
Thanks, Erik
--
Erik Nørgaard
Ph: +34.666334818
.
- Is there any reason to upgrade?
Other then diskspace and clutter, there is no reason to remove older versions
as they are properly separated by the ports. But as said you can specify a
default to be used when the port does not care which version 4 it needs. In
Utopia this should slowly migrate out ancient
I've just ordered a new server based on the Intel Xeon X3210. This is a
quad core processor supporting the Intel 64 (formerly known as Intel®
EM64T, according to the flyer) instruction set.
I plan to install FreeBSD 6.2 on it, but I'm not clear whether I should
be using the AMD64 version or the
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 10:31:33AM +, Chris Hastie wrote:
I've just ordered a new server based on the Intel Xeon X3210. This is a
quad core processor supporting the Intel 64 (formerly known as Intel®
EM64T, according to the flyer) instruction set.
I plan to install FreeBSD 6.2 on it, but
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 10:31:33AM +, Chris Hastie wrote:
I've just ordered a new server based on the Intel Xeon X3210. This is a
quad core processor supporting the Intel 64 (formerly known as Intel®
EM64T, according to the flyer) instruction set.
I plan to install FreeBSD 6.2 on it, but
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 17:01 +0100, Adam Hill wrote:
HiIt seems very confusing, I am looking for the correct version to use
for an old RM server, its a intel se7501br2 server board with a xeon
processor. We want try freebsd as a server for small networks. Can you
advise which version
HiIt seems very confusing, I am looking for the correct version to use for an
old RM server, its a intel se7501br2 server board with a xeon processor. We
want try freebsd as a server for small networks. Can you advise which version
to download?
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 14/06/07, Adam Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HiIt seems very confusing, I am looking for the
correct version to use for an old RM server, its
a intel se7501br2 server board with a xeon proces-
sor. We want try freebsd as a server for small net-
works. Can you advise which version to download
On Saturday, 27 January 2007 at 9:13:19 -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
I have been thinking of trying Opera in KDE to see if it works better
than Firefox. I have been having nothing but problems with Firefox and
Flash.
Would I be better off trying Opera or Linux-Opera? Both are offered in
the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg 'groggy' Lehey
Sent: Monday, 29 January 2007 10:22 AM
To: Gerard Seibert
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Which version of Opera to use?
On Saturday, 27 January
I have been thinking of trying Opera in KDE to see if it works better
than Firefox. I have been having nothing but problems with Firefox and
Flash.
Would I be better off trying Opera or Linux-Opera? Both are offered in
the ports.
--
Gerard
Thought for the Day:
I think the most frightening
On stardate Sat, 27 Jan 2007, the wise Gerard Seibert entered:
I have been thinking of trying Opera in KDE to see if it works better
than Firefox. I have been having nothing but problems with Firefox and
Flash.
Would I be better off trying Opera or Linux-Opera? Both are offered in
the
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:09:28PM +0100, Marco Beishuizen wrote:
On stardate Sat, 27 Jan 2007, the wise Gerard Seibert entered:
I have been thinking of trying Opera in KDE to see if it works better
than Firefox. I have been having nothing but problems with Firefox and
Flash.
Would I
. I'm wondering what other
people are generally using, and which version works best for them?
Thanks,
Patrick
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail
are generally using, and which version works best for them?
Thanks,
Patrick
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
base -- more current?). Our needs are fairly basic -- we have a
few DNS servers, and each are masters and slaves, helping one another
out. We're not using DNSSEC or anything. I'm wondering what other
people are generally using, and which version works best for them?
Thanks,
Patrick
On Friday, 2006, December 8 at 3:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Bonnet) wrote:
Frank Bonnet wrote:
Frank Bonnet wrote:
Vince wrote:
Vince wrote:
Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course
/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2
/me goes back to sleep now.
Vince
Vince,
OK
Vince wrote:
Vince wrote:
Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course
/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2
/me goes back to sleep now.
Vince
Vince,
OK i'm going to have a try with it
I'll let you know how it worked.
--
Kind Regards
Frank Bonnet
Frank Bonnet wrote:
Vince wrote:
Vince wrote:
Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course
/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2
/me goes back to sleep now.
Vince
Vince,
OK i'm going to have a try with it
I'll let you know how it worked.
Well :-( it does not work it
Frank Bonnet wrote:
Frank Bonnet wrote:
Vince wrote:
Vince wrote:
Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course
/pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2
/me goes back to sleep now.
Vince
Vince,
OK i'm going to have a try with it
I'll let you know how it worked.
Well :-( it
Peter A. Giessel wrote:
It depends on what you are going to do with it. This question has been
asked many times on this e-mail list, so you might want to start by
searching the archives.
If you are running desktop applications on it (such as X11), you might
be better off running the i386
Frank Bonnet wrote:
Peter A. Giessel wrote:
It depends on what you are going to do with it. This question has been
asked many times on this e-mail list, so you might want to start by
searching the archives.
If you are running desktop applications on it (such as X11), you might
be better
Vince wrote:
Frank Bonnet wrote:
Peter A. Giessel wrote:
It depends on what you are going to do with it. This question has been
asked many times on this e-mail list, so you might want to start by
searching the archives.
If you are running desktop applications on it (such as X11), you
Hello
I just receive a new IBM X3650 server bi-proc XEON and
I wonder which version of FreeBSD to use with it I386 or AMD64 ?
Of course it is a 64 bits machine
infos, links welcome
thanks
--
Frank
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
On 2006/12/06 0:36, Frank Bonnet seems to have typed:
Hello
I just receive a new IBM X3650 server bi-proc XEON and
I wonder which version of FreeBSD to use with it I386 or AMD64 ?
Of course it is a 64 bits machine
infos, links welcome
thanks
It depends on what you are going to do
I just receive a new IBM X3650 server bi-proc XEON and
I wonder which version of FreeBSD to use with it I386 or AMD64 ?
Do you have more than 4GB of RAM? If not, I'd recommend sticking with
i386. There are very few things that will actually run any faster with
the AMD64 version (notably, media
FreeBSD 6.1 STABLE
Using 'Firefox 1.5.0.6,1' is there any version of flash that I can
install that will work with it. I cannot seem to get anyone of them to
work with it when running from with KDE. It makes it rather difficult to
watch any video's on Google or the other streaming video services.
On 8/24/06, Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FreeBSD 6.1 STABLE
Using 'Firefox 1.5.0.6,1' is there any version of flash that I can
install that will work with it. I cannot seem to get anyone of them to
work with it when running from with KDE. It makes it rather difficult to
watch any
On Thursday 24 August 2006 14:29, Gerard Seibert wrote:
FreeBSD 6.1 STABLE
Using 'Firefox 1.5.0.6,1' is there any version of flash that I can
install that will work with it. I cannot seem to get anyone of them to
work with it when running from with KDE. It makes it rather difficult to
watch
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 05:27:01AM +1100, Sandi Dickinson wrote:
I have a Macintosh Powerbook G4 with a partitioned hard drive
If you have perfectly-good-BSD/Unix MacOS X then why do you want
FreeBSD? Once you know why you want FreeBSD you will know what version.
--
David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL
I have a Macintosh Powerbook G4 with a partitioned hard drive
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on
different versions without COMPAT* in the
kernel?
One can always carefully examine the output
of ldd, readelf and other such tools, but that
requires much knowledge and a small lab
with all kinds of BSD's set up. Is there a
better way?
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
http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html
K Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Another good URL. Ugh, were did you learn all these little things from?
http://www.freebsd.org/
[It's among the manu useful bits of information if you follow the link
called release information on the FreeBSD
I recently did a cvsup and it fetched all sorts of things so I'm a bit
concerned about what version make buildworld would create. How come the
Makefile under src/ doesn't have a version of the build about to be created
(The only version information is for the Makefile itself 1.323 but that's
On 8/29/05, K Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently did a cvsup and it fetched all sorts of things so I'm a bit
concerned about what version make buildworld would create. How come the
Makefile under src/ doesn't have a version of the build about to be created
(The only version
- Original Message -
From: Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: K Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Which version and other updating questions
On 8/29/05, K Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently did
Hi,
Just wondering how I can see which version of Freebsd I've got as sources in
my /usr/src directory.
I've done a CVS sync, but am not quite sure which version I downloaded.
Before I am rebuilding world and creating havoc on my system I want to know
for sure.
Regards,
Patrick Gelsema
On 2005-02-28 23:11, Gelsema, Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering how I can see which version of Freebsd I've got as
sources in my /usr/src directory.
One way would be to check the definition of __FreeBSD_version:
$ grep '^#define[[:space:]]\+__FreeBSD_version' /usr/src/sys/sys
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
I'm looking at getting a 3ware Escalade 7006 or 8006 RAID controller for
one of my servers. The machine presently runs RELENG_4_8. The twe man
page for that version doesn't list the 7000 or 8000 series controllers.
However, 3ware lists 4.8 as the supported version of FreeBSD for both.
Which is
hi
which version will be good to my comp.plizz help me.
Prawdziwa historia, zakazana mio, skandal obyczajowy...
Zobacz sam!
http://klik.wp.pl/?adr=http%3A%2F%2Ffilm.wp.pl%2Fp%2Ffilm.html%3Fid%3D2613sid=199
stanis³aw g±sior [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi
which version will be good to my comp.plizz help me.
Check this:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.10R/hardware.html
If your hardware is listed, then 4.10 is the way to go.
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
If you aren't using it as a production machine you may as well start
with the 5.x, 5.2.1 right now, as it could use a larger test base on
the road to stable.
cheers,
reed
stanisaw gsior wrote:
hi
which version will be good to my comp.plizz help me
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?
We will be using it for multiple servers (mail, database, app,
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?
I was getting ready to install the automake and autoconf ports, when I
noticed there's 4 different versions of each. How do I know which ones
to install?
Thanks,
Aaron
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
In the last episode (Nov 28), Aaron Walker said:
I was getting ready to install the automake and autoconf ports, when I
noticed there's 4 different versions of each. How do I know which ones
to install?
Install the version you need :) The numbered ports will all coexist.
The unnumbered
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 08:17:39PM -0500, Aaron Walker wrote:
I was getting ready to install the automake and autoconf ports, when I
noticed there's 4 different versions of each. How do I know which ones
to install?
Unless you need a specific version, install the latest one. Normally,
for
* Preston Crawford:
I want to install Java to use Ant/Tomcat/Struts stuff like that. Which
JDK is the right one to install to get these to work properly? Can
anyone tell me?
All JDK starting from 1.2 are OK. Use ports in /usr/ports/java/jdk*.
Cheers,
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
I want to install Java to use Ant/Tomcat/Struts stuff like that. Which JDK is the
right one to install to get these to work properly? Can anyone tell me?
Preston
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Wednesday 12 November 2003 21:49, Preston Crawford wrote:
I want to install Java to use Ant/Tomcat/Struts stuff like that. Which JDK
is the right one to install to get these to work properly? Can anyone
tell me?
I'm no java guy but regarding the latest commit message I think 1.4.2:
jdk14
I can only speak on my recent experience with FreeBSD
5.1. I failed installing most of the ports (I tried
lots so I don't remember, don't know if I did the
right steps) the only port that worked perfectly was
the Linux-Blackdown 1.3.x series. Of course you have
to install the linux base
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
