Re: which version of FBSD should i install?
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 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 for a simple reason. It could be that your old machine uses some USB hardware, which is not supported from 8.0 onwards. I would say, if it works, use 9.1. If not check out 7.4. If this then works, you could check 10 out. 8.3 is the version which is the most robust one as the new stuff did not arrive there yet. Erich Thanks for this. VBC uses no USB hardware... well, AFAIK. I =believe= it should work on anything unix. That is: Unix, BSD, Linux, Android. VBC doe require a keyboard since the disabled user needs to type what he wants to have spoken. If there are and USB issues there, I have no idea. if the keyboard is connected via USB, you have lost if the controller is not supported. I would not expect this to be the case on a notebook. Anyway, it is most likely that you will be happy with any version. As the ports are the same for all versions. Have fun testing. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
which version of FBSD should i install?
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 3.06GHz.
should clue me in on how much stuff I need to compile to test.
I want the Gnome Desktop, espeak, and gvim. If there is a CD
or DVD with 9.x, can somebody give me a URL?
tia,
gary
PS: The reason that vbc is only almost finished is that I need
to do a much better job outlining a.) the basics of using gvim,
b.) the basics of using the application, and c.) figuring the
best way of using the File menu dropdown to _Save the
existing files ... and more. the worst part is the
documentation... .
PPS: ive found and expanding a few lines {maybe 15-20} on
gvim/vim/vi. ineed to know how this reads. figure you guys will
know.
--
Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix
Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: which version of FBSD should i install?
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. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: which version of FBSD should i install?
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 for a simple reason. It could be that your old machine uses some USB hardware, which is not supported from 8.0 onwards. I would say, if it works, use 9.1. If not check out 7.4. If this then works, you could check 10 out. 8.3 is the version which is the most robust one as the new stuff did not arrive there yet. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: which version of FBSD should i install?
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 be able to run anything from 7.4, 8.3, 9.1 to 10.0. I mention 7.4 here for a simple reason. It could be that your old machine uses some USB hardware, which is not supported from 8.0 onwards. I would say, if it works, use 9.1. If not check out 7.4. If this then works, you could check 10 out. 8.3 is the version which is the most robust one as the new stuff did not arrive there yet. Erich Thanks for this. VBC uses no USB hardware... well, AFAIK. I =believe= it should work on anything unix. That is: Unix, BSD, Linux, Android. VBC doe require a keyboard since the disabled user needs to type what he wants to have spoken. If there are and USB issues there, I have no idea. gary -- Gary Kline kl...@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
How to find out which version of PF a given box is using...
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- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: How to find out which version of PF a given box is using...
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 different thing to PF. bpf is Berkeley Packet Filter which isn't anything to do with firewalling, but used eg. by tcpdump to select certain packets from the wire. As far as I know, bpf doesn't have a separate version number; it just uses the OS version number. It's been part of BSD Unices since dinosaurs roamed the earth. PF is the firewalling code imported from OpenBSD. Again, it's part of the base system in OpenBSD so it just uses the OpenBSD version number. Every so often there will be a new import from OpenBSD -- I believe most released versions of FreeBSD are using PF from OpenBSD 4.2, but there is an update to OpenBSD 4.mumble in the works for the upcoming FreeBSD 9.0 release. You'ld have to check the commit history in CVS or SVN to be sure. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to find out which version of PF a given box is using...
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 '--version' flag in pfctl. Uh -- bpf is a different thing to PF. bpf is Berkeley Packet Filter which isn't anything to do with firewalling, but used eg. by tcpdump to select certain packets from the wire. As far as I know, bpf doesn't have a separate version number; it just uses the OS version number. It's been part of BSD Unices since dinosaurs roamed the earth. One of these days I'll learn not to send e-mail before coffee. Please ignore the above -- red herring. PF is the firewalling code imported from OpenBSD. Again, it's part of the base system in OpenBSD so it just uses the OpenBSD version number. Every so often there will be a new import from OpenBSD -- I believe most released versions of FreeBSD are using PF from OpenBSD 4.2, but there is an update to OpenBSD 4.mumble in the works for the upcoming FreeBSD 9.0 release. You'ld have to check the commit history in CVS or SVN to be sure. In fact, the last import listed as such in the CVS history was from OpenBSD 4.1 but that was around 2007 when FreeBSD was on version 6.x -- long time ago. There's been plenty of updates since (which, IIRC, made the FreeBSD code pretty much equivalent to what is in OpenBSD 4.2), but no wholesale reimport until about 2 months ago, when OpenBSD 4.5 code was imported into head. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revisionrevision=223637 AFAIK, that is not a candidate for MFC to stable/8 or earlier, as it modifies KBIs. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to find out which version of PF a given box is using...
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 '\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 different thing to PF. bpf is Berkeley Packet Filter which isn't anything to do with firewalling, but used eg. by tcpdump to select certain packets from the wire. As far as I know, bpf doesn't have a separate version number; it just uses the OS version number. It's been part of BSD Unices since dinosaurs roamed the earth. One of these days I'll learn not to send e-mail before coffee. Please ignore the above -- red herring. PF is the firewalling code imported from OpenBSD. Again, it's part of the base system in OpenBSD so it just uses the OpenBSD version number. Every so often there will be a new import from OpenBSD -- I believe most released versions of FreeBSD are using PF from OpenBSD 4.2, but there is an update to OpenBSD 4.mumble in the works for the upcoming FreeBSD 9.0 release. You'ld have to check the commit history in CVS or SVN to be sure. In fact, the last import listed as such in the CVS history was from OpenBSD 4.1 but that was around 2007 when FreeBSD was on version 6.x -- long time ago. There's been plenty of updates since (which, IIRC, made the FreeBSD code pretty much equivalent to what is in OpenBSD 4.2), but no wholesale reimport until about 2 months ago, when OpenBSD 4.5 code was imported into head. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revisionrevision=223637 AFAIK, that is not a candidate for MFC to stable/8 or earlier, as it modifies KBIs. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW 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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: How to find out which version of PF a given box is using...
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 believe this does solve the incompatibility between PF and vimage, which is fantastic. There's been a lot of work gone into FreeBSD network stack to add capabilities that OpenBSD simply doesn't have -- mostly to do with fine-grained locking, multiprocessing support and virtualization -- all of which makes the importing process pretty non-trivial. Cheers, Matthew PS. Mac OS X Lion now uses PF for firewalling too. Apparently it's even older than the PF in FreeBSD: http://quigon.bsws.de/papers/2011/pf10yrs/mgp00078.html -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 Honestly, if a system is going to go through that large of a change, here's what I'd recommend. First scenario is the quickest running, then continue with the second to keep it up-to-date Since *ALL* configuration of base and ports is done by /etc and /usr/local/etc, back up those two directories to a tarball. they're all text files so it should compress very well. Note the packages currently on your system with a simple pkg_info. This gets you a prime data set that can restore 99%+ functionality if used. Scenario 1: pkg_info /root/pkg_info.txt tar -cPpzf /root/62rc1-config.tgz /etc /usr/local/etc /root/pkg_info.txt ** keep this /root/62rc1-config.tgz archive in a safe 2 spots. 2 spots. fresh install of 8.0R on the box. extract, at minimum, the /etc entries from the tarball kept safely away from the box for each package listed in pkg_info.txt, install from packages that package (just the QUICK way to bring a box to a usable state) extract the /usr/local/etc from the tarball. **TRY** to restart your services. The reason I state 'try' is that config files may have changed from a package version a.b to x.y, so you may need to tweak your config files to match the current package. Now that you have a live box again, able to serve requests, it's time to keep it maintained. Scenario 2: install portaudit run portaudit, fix any vulnerabilities ** at this time, your system is safe from most vulnerabilities run your favorite port management software to update the rest of the ports who do not have vulnerability advisories. I've used this tactic before, works well and WILL be faster than you updating your system from 6.2 to 6.4 to 7.2 to 8.0 Let me know if you have questions. --TJ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? As others have said, it's a RELEASE candidate. But this kernel it's running was compiled earlier this month (March 5). Ruben ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 newer updated, I just dont know how to do that =) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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? 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? snip Honestly, if a system is going to go through that large of a change, here's what I'd recommend. First scenario is the quickest running, then continue with the second to keep it up-to-date Since *ALL* configuration of base and ports is done by /etc and /usr/local/etc, back up those two directories to a tarball. they're all text files so it should compress very well. Note the packages currently on your system with a simple pkg_info. This gets you a prime data set that can restore 99%+ functionality if used. Scenario 1: pkg_info /root/pkg_info.txt tar -cPpzf /root/62rc1-config.tgz /etc /usr/local/etc /root/pkg_info.txt ** keep this /root/62rc1-config.tgz archive in a safe 2 spots. 2 spots. fresh install of 8.0R on the box. extract, at minimum, the /etc entries from the tarball kept safely away from the box for each package listed in pkg_info.txt, install from packages that package (just the QUICK way to bring a box to a usable state) extract the /usr/local/etc from the tarball. **TRY** to restart your services. The reason I state 'try' is that config files may have changed from a package version a.b to x.y, so you may need to tweak your config files to match the current package. Now that you have a live box again, able to serve requests, it's time to keep it maintained. Scenario 2: install portaudit run portaudit, fix any vulnerabilities ** at this time, your system is safe from most vulnerabilities run your favorite port management software to update the rest of the ports who do not have vulnerability advisories. I've used this tactic before, works well and WILL be faster than you updating your system from 6.2 to 6.4 to 7.2 to 8.0 Let me know if you have questions. --TJ Well, while my skills about FreeBSD is not good enough to let me feel OK to experiment with 6.2 to 6.4 to 7.2 to 8.0 updating, and while server is hard to physically access, I guess that just to do fresh install of RELEASE and re-configuring 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? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? It is what it says it is: 6.2-RC1, meaning Release Candidate 1. That's a development/test version. If this is a production system it would be a very good idea to replace it with the current 8.0 RELEASE, which will give you at least proper patch maintenance. Bas ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 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 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? It is what it says it is: 6.2-RC1, meaning Release Candidate 1. That's a development/test version. If this is a production system it would be a very good idea to replace it with the current 8.0 RELEASE, which will give you at least proper patch maintenance. Bas -- С уважением, Антон Клесс, http://kless.spb.ru/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 v.d. Wielb...@kompasmedia.nl 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 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? It is what it says it is: 6.2-RC1, meaning Release Candidate 1. That's a development/test version. If this is a production system it would be a very good idea to replace it with the current 8.0 RELEASE, which will give you at least proper patch maintenance. Bas 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-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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, I'm facing exactly the same problem now: I want to upgrade 6.2-RELEASE to something (8.0?) newer. Since I don't have spare machine for tests, I'm playing now with VirtualBox (hosted on Linux). I'd like to test upgrade using cvsup/buildworld. After I will success on virtualbox I'll perform the same path on real machine. -- Mikolaj Rydzewski m...@ceti.pl ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 RELEASE, or somehow in this style? If it works, do not fix it! I beg to differ: having a release candidate running in production should never happen so this situation has been sort of broken from the start. Luckily FreeBSD is a rock solid OS! Actually, I'm facing exactly the same problem now: I want to upgrade 6.2-RELEASE to something (8.0?) newer. Since I don't have spare machine for tests, I'm playing now with VirtualBox (hosted on Linux). I'd like to test upgrade using cvsup/buildworld. After I will success on virtualbox I'll perform the same path on real machine. Making an image backup of the machine's disk before you start should give you a decent rollback scenario in case things go badly. Bas ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
-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 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! I beg to differ: having a release candidate running in production should never happen so this situation has been sort of broken from the start. Luckily FreeBSD is a rock solid OS! Actually, I'm facing exactly the same problem now: I want to upgrade 6.2-RELEASE to something (8.0?) newer. Since I don't have spare machine for tests, I'm playing now with VirtualBox (hosted on Linux). I'd like to test upgrade using cvsup/buildworld. After I will success on virtualbox I'll perform the same path on real machine. Making an image backup of the machine's disk before you start should give you a decent rollback scenario in case things go badly. Wouldn't a RELENG_6 (i.e. 6-Stable) from the correct date actually be 6.2-RC1? I'd say that unless the box has stability issues, or there are actual security problems (is this box available from the internet?), the old if it ain't broken ... mantra should apply... //Svein - -- - +---+--- /\ |Svein Skogen | sv...@d80.iso100.no \ / |Solberg Østli 9| PGP Key: 0xE5E76831 X|2020 Skedsmokorset | sv...@jernhuset.no / \ |Norway | PGP Key: 0xCE96CE13 | | sv...@stillbilde.net ascii | | PGP Key: 0x58CD33B6 ribbon |System Admin | svein-listm...@stillbilde.net Campaign|stillbilde.net | PGP Key: 0x22D494A4 +---+--- |msn messenger: | Mobile Phone: +47 907 03 575 |sv...@jernhuset.no | RIPE handle:SS16503-RIPE - +---+--- If you really are in a hurry, mail me at svein-mob...@stillbilde.net This mailbox goes directly to my cellphone and is checked even when I'm not in front of my computer. - Picture Gallery: https://gallery.stillbilde.net/v/svein/ - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuhDT4ACgkQODUnwSLUlKSHFwCfQRE8aZUhAPf4DhAaPnu4YCtt zZgAn2OuV7AFosp5gvCMZmy2EoAxfkb8 =73uM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK 2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN amd64 Is it RELEASE, STABLE or what? I read most of the answers to this thread and after attempting the very similar upgrade (6.2-STABLE to 7.3) I can tell you that it can fail. In fact it did, and several times. In my case there were several problems I was overlooking, for example I have an IDE drive and 4 satas in a RAID5 config with gvinum. I had completely forgotten I had moved /usr to the gvinum dirve, so every time I would boot I was seeing the wrong binaries and libs, and the upgrade process was not easy. After really screwing up the whole system, I finally resorted to downloading the iso for v8 cd1 and live. With the help of FixIt the holographical shell and the live, I was able to recover the complete system and actually finishing the last steps as I'm writing this. I mean, I was able to fully recover the system without reformatting and installing from scratch. This process taught me several things: 1) upgrade has to be thought out pretty well, examine everything and plan for contingency. If you have disk arrays they may and should not mount until the end of the upgrade process IMHO. 2) The upgrade process is not hard at all, once you understand how it works. You will usually need lots of experience with Unix and hacking in general. 3) Most importantly, FreeBSD is simply _very hard_ to destroy. I really, really screwed up my system, and was able to recover it by using the handbook, google, the install CD and the Live. Now that I can truly appreciate the separation of system base from everything else, I can tell you with a lot of certainty that it's really hard not to be able to recover from a failed upgrade. Having said all this, make sure that you backup most of what you will miss, or if you can, backup everything. The upgrade process is not usually harder than what is stated here: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/updating-upgrading.html Also, if your setup is simple enough, you may be able to do it with the sysinstall utility of CD1, nevertheless, I don t advise it unless you know what your doing! Also, in my case I had a _need_ for upgrading, if you don't have a specific need, just leave it alone. The majority of newer ports will still work with 6.2. and I don't really think any security things will affect you if they haven't already! Best, Alejandro Imass ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 production might be and how good know FreeBSD, this is a good enough path. The officially recommended one also includes 6.4, but if the configuration is simple enough (no fancy partitioning, no software RAID), you could simply skip from 6.2RC1 all the way to 8.0 if you know what you are doing. Regardless, you will need to upgrade all of the installed ports (you can do it at the end, no need to upgrade every time). In any case, don't do it remotely (without access to a physical console), this is a long upgrade path for it to simply work the first time. As others said, you can recover FreeBSD from practically any disaster involving such an upgrade, but it won't necessarily be easy. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Which version of FreeBSD is it?
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 present in RC version too. If not, there should be a port version for freebsd-update. Amitabh Kant ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: About Which Version I'll Use?
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; which is, AMD Athlon Dual Core 7750 Kingston 2 Gb DDR2 RAM Maxtor 250 Gb IDE HDD nVIDIA 9500 GT Graphics Card nVIDIA NIC Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 5.1 (Sound Card) As of my assumptions, FreeBSD Release 8.0 i386 can easily be installed on my system. Am I right, sir? Or should I use amd64 version of FreeBSD? Either one will work fine. If you have more than 3GB of memory, go for amd64. If you have less than half of that, go for i386. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
About Which Version I'll Use?
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 DDR2 RAM Maxtor 250 Gb IDE HDD nVIDIA 9500 GT Graphics Card nVIDIA NIC Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 5.1 (Sound Card) As of my assumptions, FreeBSD Release 8.0 i386 can easily be installed on my system. Am I right, sir? Or should I use amd64 version of FreeBSD? Please Help Me. I am waiting for your reply. So, please reply me as soon as possible to you. -- Thanks And Regards, Vishal Kashyap. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
which version for an eee pc 901?
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?) This is for my personal EEE PC - a 901 (currently running the default xandros, but looking forward to moving towards FreeBSD!) Thanks, Alun. --- This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. Please refer to http://www.db.com/en/content/eu_disclosures.htm for additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version
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, X86 family processor? Please do some reading before asking questions on the mailing list. The FreeBSD Handbook (google it) is an excellent resource and will answer most of your questions about FreeBSD. But to answer this specific question: Yes, it's called FreeBSD. Just get the latest release (7.0) and install it. Christian Zachariasen And your answer doesn't answer the OP's question. I think the OP was asking which platform to use. 7.0 is the stable release No. 7.0 is currently the RELEASE release. and you need the i386 platform. Yup. something like 7.0-RELEASE-i386-disc1.iso is what you need -- burn this image to CD and then boot off the CD. That looks right. You want the directory: /pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/ISO-IMAGES/7.0 and the image: 7.0-RELEASE-i386-disc1.iso within that directory. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- If you want the STABLE images They are in: /pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/_month_such as: /pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/200805 Then you probably want image: 7.0-STABLE-200805-i386-disc1.iso if you want to install the most recent STABLE release, but that is not the RELEASE version. Maybe it is an unfortunate choice of words and naming conventions, but that is the way it is. jerry The handbook is still an excellent resource. http://www.freebsd.org/handbook good luck, feel free to ask questions, after searching a bit. It makes us understand the question better and quicker response. Enjoy! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please do some reading before asking questions on the mailing list. The FreeBSD Handbook (google it) is an excellent resource and will answer most of your questions about FreeBSD. But to answer this specific question: Yes, it's called FreeBSD. Just get the latest release (7.0) and install it. Christian Zachariasen ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version
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 questions on the mailing list. The FreeBSD Handbook (google it) is an excellent resource and will answer most of your questions about FreeBSD. But to answer this specific question: Yes, it's called FreeBSD. Just get the latest release (7.0) and install it. Christian Zachariasen And your answer doesn't answer the OP's question. I think the OP was asking which platform to use. 7.0 is the stable release and you need the i386 platform. something like 7.0-RELEASE-i386-disc1.iso is what you need -- burn this image to CD and then boot off the CD. The handbook is still an excellent resource. http://www.freebsd.org/handbook good luck, feel free to ask questions, after searching a bit. It makes us understand the question better and quicker response. Enjoy! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version of berkeley DB?
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 http://www.locolomo.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of berkeley DB?
On Thursday 21 February 2008 20:38:31 Erik Norgaard wrote: 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? No, cause there's reasons there's so many db4* ports. Some interfaces changed along the way and depending software needs time to conform to it. However: You can set WITH_BDB_VER in /etc/make.conf and pick one. If you grep BDB /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.databases.mk you can quickly see that a portmaintainer has more power then you. - 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 versions. In the real world, there will be this one unmaintained app you really like that won't work with anything over 42 :p -- Mel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version with a Xeon X3210
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 x86 version. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version with a Xeon X3210
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 I'm not clear whether I should be using the AMD64 version or the x86 version. Either version should work. If you intend to use 4GB (or more) of RAM, then the AMD64 version will work better by allowing you to actually use all of that memory. Otherwise you might as well use the i386 version for better compatibility with binary-only programs/codecs/drivers (mainly affects various multimedia codecs which is probably not very important for a server though.) -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version with a Xeon X3210
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 I'm not clear whether I should be using the AMD64 version or the x86 version. If you routinely run out of address space on i386 with your workload, you should use amd64. It is possible for amd64 to be faster than i386 (more registers, among other things), but it depends on the workload (an IO-bound workload will see little difference, I suspect). You'll have to test that. If you depend on binary and/or i386-only ports (e.g. nv driver, wine, flash plugin) you should probably go with i386. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpARDxzq14QS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which Version?
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 to download? Try disc1 of the 6.2/amd64 and 6.2/i386. Use the 'bootonly' mini ISOs just to try it. Xeon normally means amd64-era, depending on whether you'll run into PAE problems with 3+ gigs of RAM. ~BAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ 100’s of Music vouchers to be won with MSN Music https://www.musicmashup.co.uk/index.html___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brian A. Seklecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collaborative Fusion, Inc. IMPORTANT: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient (or the individual responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended recipient), please be advised that any re-use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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] _ 100’s of Music vouchers to be won with MSN Music https://www.musicmashup.co.uk/index.html___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which Version?
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? Well, having looked at intel's brilliantly informative website, I can understand your confusion. For all they tell you it could be an overclocked 8088. But seriously, a 533MHz FSB makes me suspect it is 32-bit, and so you would want the i386 version. -- -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of Opera to use?
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 ports. I'd recommend native Opera. I've heard recently from people at Opera who are very keen to ensure that it works well on FreeBSD, so it makes sense to help them. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers. pgpzEadxdDMee.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Which version of Opera to use?
-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 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 ports. I'd recommend native Opera. I've heard recently from people at Opera who are very keen to ensure that it works well on FreeBSD, so it makes sense to help them. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers. I've always used the native version of Opera on FreeBSD and it's always worked well. Regards, Russell Wood DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. This e-mail is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us by return e-mail immediately, and delete the e-mail and any attachments without using or disclosing the contents in any way. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the author, and do not represent those of this company unless this is clearly indicated. You should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. This company accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage or loss resulting from the use of any attachments to this e-mail. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version of Opera to use?
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 thing about heredity and environment is that our parents provide both. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of Opera to use?
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 ports. I'm using the native FreeBSD version with flash and that works great, so I can only recommend it. Also in my case FF constantly crashed when opening a site whith flash. Until recently only the linux-opera had flash support, but now they both have. Marco -- I might have gone to West Point, but I was too proud to speak to a congressman. -- Will Rogers ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of Opera to use?
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 be better off trying Opera or Linux-Opera? Both are offered in the ports. I'm using the native FreeBSD version with flash and that works great, so I can only recommend it. Also in my case FF constantly crashed when opening a site whith flash. Until recently only the linux-opera had flash support, but now they both have. Marco -- I might have gone to West Point, but I was too proud to speak to a congressman. -- Will Rogers ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have use both and if you need flash very often, I'd suggest linux-opera. It tends to handle flash video (google video) better. I currently have native opera. It just takes a few second longer to see the flash video. It does not bother me...but it may bother others. Try both ( one at a time ) and see the difference for yourself. note: I don't use KDE...don't know if that might make a difference in resource loads. -- Alexander FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE i386 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of BIND to use on FreeBSD 6.1?
I think I'll rephrase my question. What real advantage is there for me running BIND 9 over BIND 8? Version 9 seems to require a lot more memory and is still giving me this really annoying problem of using all my CPU time when it hits the max_cache_size. I'm not using DNSSEC or IPV6... Patrick On 1/3/07, patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to figure out which is the best version of BIND to use on FreeBSD 6.1? I've always stuck with FreeBSD's base version, and since upgrading from FreeBSD 4.x to 6.1, that meant moving from BIND 8.3.x to 9.3.2. I've encountered numerous problems since moving to 9.3.2 which primarily revolve around exponential increases in memory and CPU usage. On our BIND 8.3.x setup, we have 750 master domains. Memory usage is just shy of 70MBs. On our new server with BIND 9.3.2, we have currently 140 master domains, and memory usage continually grows until FreeBSD cuts it off. I have discovered the max-cache-size option which allows me set an upper limit, but when the named process hits that limit, it starts eating up all available CPU cycles. I've seen some similar reports from other users, but haven't found any real solutions. While browsing the ports tree, I found I have my pick of BIND 8.3.x, 8.4.x, and a ports version of 9.3.x (not sure exactly how this differs from 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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version of BIND to use on FreeBSD 6.1?
I'm trying to figure out which is the best version of BIND to use on FreeBSD 6.1? I've always stuck with FreeBSD's base version, and since upgrading from FreeBSD 4.x to 6.1, that meant moving from BIND 8.3.x to 9.3.2. I've encountered numerous problems since moving to 9.3.2 which primarily revolve around exponential increases in memory and CPU usage. On our BIND 8.3.x setup, we have 750 master domains. Memory usage is just shy of 70MBs. On our new server with BIND 9.3.2, we have currently 140 master domains, and memory usage continually grows until FreeBSD cuts it off. I have discovered the max-cache-size option which allows me set an upper limit, but when the named process hits that limit, it starts eating up all available CPU cycles. I've seen some similar reports from other users, but haven't found any real solutions. While browsing the ports tree, I found I have my pick of BIND 8.3.x, 8.4.x, and a ports version of 9.3.x (not sure exactly how this differs from 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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of BIND to use on FreeBSD 6.1?
I am using the default 9.X that is installed with 6.1. The only problems I have had is that startup options changed and required another define in rc.conf. -Derek At 02:41 PM 1/3/2007, patrick wrote: I'm trying to figure out which is the best version of BIND to use on FreeBSD 6.1? I've always stuck with FreeBSD's base version, and since upgrading from FreeBSD 4.x to 6.1, that meant moving from BIND 8.3.x to 9.3.2. I've encountered numerous problems since moving to 9.3.2 which primarily revolve around exponential increases in memory and CPU usage. On our BIND 8.3.x setup, we have 750 master domains. Memory usage is just shy of 70MBs. On our new server with BIND 9.3.2, we have currently 140 master domains, and memory usage continually grows until FreeBSD cuts it off. I have discovered the max-cache-size option which allows me set an upper limit, but when the named process hits that limit, it starts eating up all available CPU cycles. I've seen some similar reports from other users, but haven't found any real solutions. While browsing the ports tree, I found I have my pick of BIND 8.3.x, 8.4.x, and a ports version of 9.3.x (not sure exactly how this differs from 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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits ) egg and chicken problem ...
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 i'm going to have a try with it I'll let you know how it worked. Well :-( it does not work it seems the Adaptec patch for serverRAID 8k is not present in 6.2-RC1 as sysinstall does not find any disk this is an egg and chicken problem ! How to rebuild a new patched amd64 ISO as I only have *this* 64 bits machine and cannot acces to hard disks ? I had a similar problem with my 3ware card when I first installed 6.0. The 3ware card was brand new and not yet in the base system, but a driver was posted on their site. How I solved the problem is that I installed another card that was supported in the base system, another hard drive that worked with the card (UltraDMA 133 card/hard drive IIRC). After installing on that hard drive, and patching to support my raid card, I booted off the patched drive and the raid array was then recognized. I used dump/restore to move the patched system from the IDE hard drive to the raid array, then could boot off the raid array as desired and could remove the extra card/hard drive. HTH. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
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 seems the Adaptec patch for serverRAID 8k is not present in 6.2-RC1 as sysinstall does not find any disk -- Cordialement Frank Bonnet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits ) egg and chicken problem ...
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 does not work it seems the Adaptec patch for serverRAID 8k is not present in 6.2-RC1 as sysinstall does not find any disk this is an egg and chicken problem ! How to rebuild a new patched amd64 ISO as I only have *this* 64 bits machine and cannot acces to hard disks ? -- Cordialement Frank Bonnet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
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 version as some ports don't support AMD64, however, if you have more than 4GB of RAM and/or are running all ports that support AMD64, you'd probably be better off running AMD64. I'm running AMD64 with Apache22, PHP5, MySQL40, Dovecot, Sendmail, SASL2, Horde-IMP, and some other things and it works great (Opteron 246 x2, 4GB RAM, 3Ware raid card), but YMMV. Well thanks for your answer, the machine will be our mailhub so its configuration will be close to yours ( except I'll run postfix instead of sendmail ) it will have 7Gb RAM so I have to go for AMD64 I discover after posting my email to the list the the serverRAID shipped with my x3650 is not yet supported at 6.1 (no disk seen at install) but I read in an archive there is a patch (in aac) provided by Adaptec that will be integrated in 6.2 ... If the 6.2 delay is too long I'll try to apply the patch myself, I never did that but there is probably a way to do it :-) Thanks again -- Cordialement Frank Bonnet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
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 off running the i386 version as some ports don't support AMD64, however, if you have more than 4GB of RAM and/or are running all ports that support AMD64, you'd probably be better off running AMD64. I'm running AMD64 with Apache22, PHP5, MySQL40, Dovecot, Sendmail, SASL2, Horde-IMP, and some other things and it works great (Opteron 246 x2, 4GB RAM, 3Ware raid card), but YMMV. Well thanks for your answer, the machine will be our mailhub so its configuration will be close to yours ( except I'll run postfix instead of sendmail ) it will have 7Gb RAM so I have to go for AMD64 I discover after posting my email to the list the the serverRAID shipped with my x3650 is not yet supported at 6.1 (no disk seen at install) but I read in an archive there is a patch (in aac) provided by Adaptec that will be integrated in 6.2 ... If the 6.2 delay is too long I'll try to apply the patch myself, I never did that but there is probably a way to do it :-) you could try installing from the RC-1 images if your impatient. (ISOs in /pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 on your favorite mirror) Vince Thanks again ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
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 might be better off running the i386 version as some ports don't support AMD64, however, if you have more than 4GB of RAM and/or are running all ports that support AMD64, you'd probably be better off running AMD64. I'm running AMD64 with Apache22, PHP5, MySQL40, Dovecot, Sendmail, SASL2, Horde-IMP, and some other things and it works great (Opteron 246 x2, 4GB RAM, 3Ware raid card), but YMMV. Well thanks for your answer, the machine will be our mailhub so its configuration will be close to yours ( except I'll run postfix instead of sendmail ) it will have 7Gb RAM so I have to go for AMD64 I discover after posting my email to the list the the serverRAID shipped with my x3650 is not yet supported at 6.1 (no disk seen at install) but I read in an archive there is a patch (in aac) provided by Adaptec that will be integrated in 6.2 ... If the 6.2 delay is too long I'll try to apply the patch myself, I never did that but there is probably a way to do it :-) you could try installing from the RC-1 images if your impatient. (ISOs in /pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 on your favorite mirror) 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 Thanks again ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
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://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
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 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 version as some ports don't support AMD64, however, if you have more than 4GB of RAM and/or are running all ports that support AMD64, you'd probably be better off running AMD64. I'm running AMD64 with Apache22, PHP5, MySQL40, Dovecot, Sendmail, SASL2, Horde-IMP, and some other things and it works great (Opteron 246 x2, 4GB RAM, 3Ware raid card), but YMMV. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
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 encoding/decoding and anything else that can take advantage of the 64-bit registers for math operations). Josh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version of Flash to use
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. -- Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of Flash to use
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 video's on Google or the other streaming video services. From an little while back: http://tinyurl.com/gxzof It worked for me on 6.1 on Gnome, hopefully it'll work for you too. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of Flash to use
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 any video's on Google or the other streaming video services. Flash + native Firefox will mostly work with linuxpluginwrapper if you apply the rtld patch to your system and have the correct settings in /etc/libmap.conf. The details on how to do that have been well documented on this list and elsewhere (at least once by yours truly). However, Google video is one of a number of notable sites that do NOT work with the above. For these, the best approach seems to be to use Linux-firefox (with the linux flash plugin, of course). JN ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version do I need?
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 PROTECTED] Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version do I need?
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]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 explain the discrepancy. Didn't see anything in quick looks through gcc(1) or make(1), either. Weird. It doesn't look like it's done in the magic file. Rather, it's something built in to file itself. Check out around line 400 of 'readelf.c'. This doesn't explain how it gets in to the binaries built, though. Here's some more to think about. I have a simple cpp program I used to test something a while back. Running file on that executable returns: trisha% file floatpoint floatpoint: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.3.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped I just now recompiled with c++ floatpoint.cpp and now: trisha% file a.out a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped And compiled with same commandline on the working machine: alexis% file a.out a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped I looked at my env, but I do not see /any/ compiler related variables set. Is there something up with the compiler itself? My processor? (Athlon64 in i386 mode) Later, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clearly, something has changed in the compiler suite. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 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 FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ I tried both versions of file (base system and ports) on 6.0 RC1, none showed any info about that /usr/bin/man (or any other system binary I tried). On my firewall (5.4) it works. That's odd. Am on 6.0-RC1: # uname -a FreeBSD smogmonster.local 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #0: Thu Oct 20 14:41:23 MDT 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL60 i386 % file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I know I built valgrind just a few days ago: % file /usr/local/bin/valgrind /usr/local/bin/valgrind: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), statically linked, stripped vim, too: % file /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/local/bin/vim: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I'm not sure what it means when this information isn't accessible, but I'd say it's symptomatic of another issue, and most likely it's not good. If you built from source, did you follow the procedure described in the handbook? http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html Not sure, but are you installing kernel after building world, and then installing world in single user? I've seen strange things happen if you don't do this procedure the right way. Of course, I'm just guessing, as I'm not at all sure what could be causing this problem or what your exact circumstances are. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat64% uname -a FreeBSD sat64.net17 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #2: Fri Oct 14 22:57:08 MSD 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SATCUR32 i386 sat64% file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dyn amically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynam ically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamica lly linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/local/bin/waveplay /usr/local/bin/waveplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (Free BSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% /usr/local/bin/file /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Maybe you're right. I never go to single-user when upgrading. But then, I'm the only user and there are not many processes. I'm not gonna worry anyway, hope it's not a rootkit :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 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 FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ I tried both versions of file (base system and ports) on 6.0 RC1, none showed any info about that /usr/bin/man (or any other system binary I tried). On my firewall (5.4) it works. That's odd. Am on 6.0-RC1: # uname -a FreeBSD smogmonster.local 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #0: Thu Oct 20 14:41:23 MDT 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL60 i386 % file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I know I built valgrind just a few days ago: % file /usr/local/bin/valgrind /usr/local/bin/valgrind: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), statically linked, stripped vim, too: % file /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/local/bin/vim: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I'm not sure what it means when this information isn't accessible, but I'd say it's symptomatic of another issue, and most likely it's not good. If you built from source, did you follow the procedure described in the handbook? http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html Not sure, but are you installing kernel after building world, and then installing world in single user? I've seen strange things happen if you don't do this procedure the right way. Of course, I'm just guessing, as I'm not at all sure what could be causing this problem or what your exact circumstances are. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat64% uname -a FreeBSD sat64.net17 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #2: Fri Oct 14 22:57:08 MSD 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SATCUR32 i386 sat64% file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dyn amically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynam ically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamica lly linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/local/bin/waveplay /usr/local/bin/waveplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (Free BSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% file /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped sat64% /usr/local/bin/file /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay /usr/local/lib/oss/bin/ossplay: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Maybe you're right. I never go to single-user when upgrading. But then, I'm the only user and there are not many processes. I'm not gonna worry anyway, hope it's not a rootkit :-) 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. Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 /usr/share/misc/magic file from a system that
works and a system that doesn't work. I'd expect the difference to
be evident there.
It works find on all my machines, though.
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*--[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]--*
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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. Consider diff'ing the /usr/share/misc/magic file from a system that works and a system that doesn't work. I'd expect the difference to be evident there. It works find on all my machines, though. I have two 5.4 systems, one's a 5.4-Release installed from Disk, the other's a 5.4-release-p7 upgraded from 5.3 via the procedures in the handbook. File on the former reports FreeBSD version, file on the latter does not. There appears to be only minor differences in magic files between the two machines. Copying the magic file from the working machine to the non-working machine and compiling it via file -c did not change anything. Copying the executable from the working machine to the non-working machine did nothing either. Note: alexis-5.4, trisha-5.4p7 alexis% file `which ethereal` /usr/X11R6/bin/ethereal: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped trisha% file `which ethereal` /usr/X11R6/bin/ethereal: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Thanks, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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. Consider diff'ing the /usr/share/misc/magic file from a system that works and a system that doesn't work. I'd expect the difference to be evident there. It works find on all my machines, though. Didn't think to check this until /after/ I started to make lunch. :) I copied ethereal from the working machine to the non-working machine. Using file on the copied ethereal gives me: trisha% file ethereal ethereal: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Conversly coping ethereal from the broken machine to the working machine I get: alexis% file ethereal ethereal: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped 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? Later, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 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 gcc(1) or
make(1), either.
Weird.
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*--[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]--*
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 gcc(1) or make(1), either. Weird. It doesn't look like it's done in the magic file. Rather, it's something built in to file itself. Check out around line 400 of 'readelf.c'. This doesn't explain how it gets in to the binaries built, though. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 quick looks through gcc(1) or make(1), either. Weird. It doesn't look like it's done in the magic file. Rather, it's something built in to file itself. Check out around line 400 of 'readelf.c'. This doesn't explain how it gets in to the binaries built, though. Here's some more to think about. I have a simple cpp program I used to test something a while back. Running file on that executable returns: trisha% file floatpoint floatpoint: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.3.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped I just now recompiled with c++ floatpoint.cpp and now: trisha% file a.out a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped And compiled with same commandline on the working machine: alexis% file a.out a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped I looked at my env, but I do not see /any/ compiler related variables set. Is there something up with the compiler itself? My processor? (Athlon64 in i386 mode) Later, Micah ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 push it, but how file would ever help me to know subj? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here is an example: 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 -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 without COMPAT* in the kernel? file (1) I don't mean to push it, but how file would ever help me to know subj? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here is an example: 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 -Mike Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Sorry and thanks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I tried both versions of file (base system and ports) on 6.0 RC1, none showed any info about that /usr/bin/man (or any other system binary I tried). On my firewall (5.4) it works. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about FreeBSD 6 yet, so it doesn't display version info when run against my binaries. Curious. huff@ file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.0 (73), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped huff@ I tried both versions of file (base system and ports) on 6.0 RC1, none showed any info about that /usr/bin/man (or any other system binary I tried). On my firewall (5.4) it works. That's odd. Am on 6.0-RC1: # uname -a FreeBSD smogmonster.local 6.0-RC1 FreeBSD 6.0-RC1 #0: Thu Oct 20 14:41:23 MDT 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL60 i386 % file /usr/bin/xargs /usr/bin/xargs: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /usr/bin/man /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped % file /bin/echo /bin/echo: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I know I built valgrind just a few days ago: % file /usr/local/bin/valgrind /usr/local/bin/valgrind: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), statically linked, stripped vim, too: % file /usr/local/bin/vim /usr/local/bin/vim: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 6.0 (600034), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped I'm not sure what it means when this information isn't accessible, but I'd say it's symptomatic of another issue, and most likely it's not good. If you built from source, did you follow the procedure described in the handbook? http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html Not sure, but are you installing kernel after building world, and then installing world in single user? I've seen strange things happen if you don't do this procedure the right way. Of course, I'm just guessing, as I'm not at all sure what could be causing this problem or what your exact circumstances are. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of FreeBSD a binary was compiled for?
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 lab
with all kinds of BSD's set up. Is there a better way?
| ~ % file /usr/local/bin/screen
| /usr/local/bin/screen: setuid ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel
| 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4, dynamically linked
| (uses shared libs), stripped
| ~ % uname -a
| FreeBSD vger.caenn.wisc.edu 5.4-RELEASE-p8 FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p8
| #1: Tue Oct 11 20:19:50 CDT 2005
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VGER20050925 i386
--
o--{ Will Maier }--o
| jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
*--[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]--*
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version and other updating questions
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 front page.] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version and other updating questions
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 not very helpful)? If it's there could somebody put it someplace that makes it easy to find. And UPDATING has NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 7.x IS SLOW: But that's not helpful because it just tells me that I could inadvertently fetch 7.x stuff (which I probably just did since I have tag=.). uname -a reported 6.0-CURRENT (Gack current, doh *feint*). Here's what my cvsupme5 file looks like --- *default host=cvsup7.FreeBSD.org *default base=/usr *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all ports-all Let me guess, since I'm using tag=. (Otherwise known as HEAD) it's going to get what ever is bleeding edge? Should I change that to tag=RELENG_6 (In hopes that cvsup doesn't grab bleeding edge stuff)? Assistance is greatly appreciated. And just when I had this all figured out too. :( ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version and other updating questions
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 information is for the Makefile itself 1.323 but that's not very helpful)? If it's there could somebody put it someplace that makes it easy to find. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/Makefile That Makefile is for HEAD And UPDATING has NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 7.x IS SLOW: But that's not helpful because it just tells me that I could inadvertently fetch 7.x stuff (which I probably just did since I have tag=.). It tells you that you *did* fetch 7.x stuff uname -a reported 6.0-CURRENT (Gack current, doh *feint*). Here's what my cvsupme5 file looks like --- *default host=cvsup7.FreeBSD.org *default base=/usr *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all ports-all Let me guess, since I'm using tag=. (Otherwise known as HEAD) it's going to get what ever is bleeding edge? Yes. Should I change that to tag=RELENG_6 (In hopes that cvsup doesn't grab bleeding edge stuff)? Yes and remove ports-all, one supfile for ports and one supfile for system, here is my systems supfile: *default host=cvsup12.us.FreeBSD.org *default base=/var/db *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_6 *default delete use-rel-suffix *default compress src-all And here is my ports supfile: *default host=cvsup12.us.FreeBSD.org *default base=/var/db *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. *default delete use-rel-suffix *default compress ports-all The Ports system has no cvs branches, it is always HEAD. You can also check here for FreeBSD branch tags: http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version and other updating questions
- 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 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 not very helpful)? If it's there could somebody put it someplace that makes it easy to find. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/Makefile That Makefile is for HEAD Hey great stuff, but it would still be nice to see a build version in the Make file like the port maintainers do. And UPDATING has NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 7.x IS SLOW: But that's not helpful because it just tells me that I could inadvertently fetch 7.x stuff (which I probably just did since I have tag=.). It tells you that you *did* fetch 7.x stuff Ugh, not a big deal though. I'll take your recommendations that you had below and correct the situation. Thanks again. uname -a reported 6.0-CURRENT (Gack current, doh *feint*). Here's what my cvsupme5 file looks like --- *default host=cvsup7.FreeBSD.org *default base=/usr *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all ports-all Let me guess, since I'm using tag=. (Otherwise known as HEAD) it's going to get what ever is bleeding edge? Yes. Should I change that to tag=RELENG_6 (In hopes that cvsup doesn't grab bleeding edge stuff)? Yes and remove ports-all, one supfile for ports and one supfile for system, here is my systems supfile: *default host=cvsup12.us.FreeBSD.org *default base=/var/db *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_6 *default delete use-rel-suffix *default compress src-all And here is my ports supfile: *default host=cvsup12.us.FreeBSD.org *default base=/var/db *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs tag=. *default delete use-rel-suffix *default compress ports-all The Ports system has no cvs branches, it is always HEAD. You can also check here for FreeBSD branch tags: http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html Another good URL. Ugh, were did you learn all these little things from? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How can I see which version is in /usr/src
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 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How can I see which version is in /usr/src
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/param.h #define __FreeBSD_version 600019/* Master, propagated to newvers */ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which Version of FreeBSD?
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 estimate that cost. In a production environment I would recommend using a system you are familiar with administering. I hope I do not get too many people mad at me for say this. If you are seating up a file sharing server that works in a windows environment you may want to use 5.3. This version adds support for ACL, NSS (nss_ldap) , and a bunch of other stuff that I have not be able to explore yet. On Wednesday 29 September 2004 19:07, Michael G. Goodell wrote: Which release of FreeBSD is best for a production environment? I am aware of the different branches of development: CURRENT, STABLE, RELEASE and I *think* I understand the meaning of each from what I have read. Perhaps not since I am writing this question! But, what I would like to know is when I am setting up a production system, or desktop for that matter, which is considered *THE* most stable of the choices in versions. Is it in the 4.x branch, 5x etc... Where can I get clarification on this topic - any direction would be welcome. Thanks, Michael ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-newbies 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]
Which version of FreeBSD to support a 3ware Escalade 7006 and 8006 controllers?
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 correct? More to the point: What would be the recommended version of FreeBSD I should use for these controllers? Does it really matter? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which version?
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 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which version?
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 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which version?
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. 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 ___ [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]
Which version of freebsd..
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, web etc..) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of freebsd..
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 like 4.10 is in beta so if you're looking for stability it might be worth hanging on until it hits -RELEASE (or, install 4.9 and then cvsup). Bear in mind 5 is still a technology release and should not be used for production servers. -lewiz. -- I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. --Bob Dylan, 1964. -| msn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | url:www.lewiz.org |- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which version of freebsd..
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? 4.9-RELEASE will be supported[1] for at least a year from it's release, as is normal with all the the 4.x series. However, support for 4.8-RELEASE has been specifically extended until 31 March 2005, and it's listed EOL is actually later than the one for 4.9 at the moment. http://www.freebsd.org/security/ The upcoming 4.10-RELEASE will presumably be supported for the usual 12 months from release, which takes it to an EOL at around the same time as currently stated for 4.8-RELEASE and 4-STABLE. We will be using it for multiple servers (mail, database, app, web etc..) You have two choices: either the conservative one of installing one of the 4.x releases, or the risky one of installing a 5.x release. If your profit margin or job security depends on the performance of those servers, go with 4.x. You'll have getting on for another year of support, at which time you will have a choice of well-tested 5.x releases to jump to. Or you can just go to 5.x immediately -- avoiding the effort of a 4.x to 5.x transition. However be aware that 5.x releases are still Early Adopter, which among other things means that they don't get a very long support period[2]. In which case, expect to have to do an upgrade from 5.2.1 to 5.3 in the fairly near future. That Early Adopter status will change with the creation of the 5-STABLE branch and 5.3-RELEASE, which should happen later this summer. After that point the 5.x releases will be recognised as full-blown FreeBSD releases and receive the normal length of support. Cheers, Matthew [1] Support in this case means that security bugs in the base system will be fixed. It doesn't mean that such things as ports are guarranteed to work correctly. The whole ports mechanism is only thoroughly tested by the routine package building process, which takes place on the latest 4.x and 5.x release branches. Although it is generally possible to made the ports system work on older systems, this cannot be absolutely guarranteed. [2] There was some consternation after the release of FreeBSD-SA-04:04.tcp.asc when many people first realised that 5.1-RELEASE was no longer supported. -- 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 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
which version of automake/autoconf?
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which version of automake/autoconf?
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 port is the default one, which is not necessarily the best. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which version of automake/autoconf?
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 building ports you don't have to worry about it because the correct version(s) will be installed automatically. The reason we have so many ports is that the auto* developers like to break backwards-compatibility very frequently, so a lot of older software cannot be configured using the latest versions. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which version of Java to use?
* 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 http://caraldi.com/jbq/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Which version of Java to use?
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 http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version of Java to use?
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 java Java Development Kit 1.4.2 Update to 1.4.2p5. Important changes since last patchset: . jdk14 port is now JDK 1.4.2 based! . JavaWS distributing with jdk . Runway problem fixed (fork() is no more problem for java apps) . Sound support updated . IPv6 support overhauled . Drag'n'Drop support fixed (require open-motif mods) As for now there's no more outstanding issues with this port! FreeBSD port is also got a important of changes: . optimized setup is now default (to get debuging bins/libs use WITH_DEBUG) . bootstrap jdk autodetection. If WITH_LINUX_BOOTSTRAP is not set, then it checks all known to work JDKs installed. If nothing found, forces to install of linux-sun-jdk14 . Because of above change there's no NATIVE_BOOTSTRAP option anymore. If native jdk14 is installed, it will be used by default. Preston ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: Which version of Java to use?
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 libraries. Then I downloaded the Sun JDK 1.4.0 version for Linux and it also works fine, I tried the 1.4.1 version and it core dumped. I've been using the 1.4.0 setup with Jakarta Tomcat 5.1 and OpenEJB 0.94 without problems (development enviroment). Bye Javier Soques __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
