On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. Most of the
open source OSes do it just fine. Debian had probably the easiest to use
system, and they've risen, owned the world and fallen all while FreeBSD has
been debating this issue.
Kai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Hello,
Another ™.02,
Today I'm installing Freebsd 6 from a CD, and I'm having to jump through
loops to get it up-to-date. Take for example FreeBSD-SA-06:03.cpio.
First I need to install the sources for the complete OS, then run a patch on
it, and all that for
Hi,
Kai wrote:
Another ™.02,
Today I'm installing Freebsd 6 from a CD, and I'm having to jump through
loops to get it up-to-date. Take for example FreeBSD-SA-06:03.cpio.
First I need to install the sources for the complete OS, then run a patch on
it, and all that for the installation of 1
On 22. des. 2005, at 22.17, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If
the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero
people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows,
Mac OS X or Solaris, to name just three commercial OS's.
On Fri, 2006-Jan-06 02:34:40 -0800, Jo
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
1. modified kernels are foobar
..yet are practically mandatory on production systems
Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine.
While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero
people
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:11:58PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:02, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
How do you expect these two to be handled in a binary upgrade?
I can't see how it's possible..
Look around.
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:26:12PM -0500, Ender wrote:
I think what integrated with the core OS means from a user standpoint
is: from a fresh minimum install of freebsd I can type
freebsd-update-whatever and it will update my system.
Just freebsd-update ;-)
That works fairly well with the
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:40:56PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
No. I want a binary update mechanism. Obviously if we have local
configuration options we'll have to compile our own binaries. But doing
the work of tracking system updates currently requires us to build our own
patch tracking
On Fri, 2006-Jan-06 02:34:40 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero
people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows,
Mac OS X or Solaris, to name just three commercial
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:13:20PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:10:19PM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team has
repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts
Please provide hard evidence for this
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:38:20PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I agree with Brooks. I don't recall ever seeing a message from -core
(or anyone else talking on behalf of the Project) stating that code to
make binary updates possible would not be integrated. For that matter,
I don't recall ever
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:47, Jo Rhett wrote:
But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been
describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS.
1. modified kernels are foobar
..yet are practically mandatory on production systems
2. modified
On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 13:17:30 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been
describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS.
1. modified kernels are foobar
..yet are practically mandatory on production systems
2. modified
Hello!
1. modified kernels are foobar
..yet are practically mandatory on production systems
Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine.
While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero
people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows,
Mac OS X or
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:02, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
How do you expect these two to be handled in a binary upgrade?
I can't see how it's possible..
Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. Most of the
open source OSes
On Thu, 2006-Jan-05 01:37:27 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
No. I want a binary update mechanism. Obviously if we have local
configuration options we'll have to compile our own binaries. But doing
the work of tracking system updates currently requires us to build our own
patch tracking mechanism, and
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:10:19PM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team has
repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts
Please provide hard evidence for this assertion. Merely repeating it will
not be sufficiently convincing. I
As a FreeBSD-n00b with some 'friends' that know FreeBSD better/well I
can only say
Please add this kind of information to the Handbook
Any addition to the handbook on tracking down problems and smarter
ways to fix things would be greatly appreciated. I found myself
recompiling my kernel to test
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:08:07PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
So, when will you fix it? Or hire someone to fix it? FreeBSD after
all is mostly a volunteer operation.
I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team has
repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts,
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:35:34PM +0100, K?vesd?n G?bor wrote:
I agree. And after all, tracking a security branch isn't too difficult,
but the most people think that they have to do a complete make
buildworld after a security advisory, but this isn't true. For example
there was that
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If
the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not distributed from the
FreeBSD.org domain, then a)
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:10:19PM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:08:07PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
So, when will you fix it? Or hire someone to fix it? FreeBSD after
all is mostly a volunteer operation.
I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:30:41PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
This statement makes no sense. The core team wouldn't have much to
do with this other than possibly being involved in making any service
official. Also, approval is never given to include a non-existent
feature. Easy, binary
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:47, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If
the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not
On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 13:10:19 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team has
repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts, which makes
os-upgrade capability minimal and easily broken. (see current efforts)
On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 14:05:32 -0800, Jo
Kevin Oberman writes:
[discussion of USB/Cx level interactions clipped out...]
If you unload the drivers, you should be to lower levels. Take a look at
sysctl hw.acpi.cpu for detail and to see how much time is spent in each
sleep state.
I assume that you can unload the drivers, but
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:46:49 +0100
From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:14:01 +0100
From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600
From: Craig Boston [EMAIL
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:14:01 +0100
From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600
From: Craig Boston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-cpu0: ACPI CPU (4 Cx states) on acpi0
+cpu0: ACPI CPU on
On Sunday 18 December 2005 20:46, martinko wrote:
# sysctl hw.acpi.cpu
hw.acpi.cpu.cx_supported: C1/1
hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest: C1
hw.acpi.cpu.cx_usage: 100.00%
and, imho, cx_supported should list all available states, doesn't matter
what is in rc.conf. (well, at least i reckon it's supposed
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:46:49 +0100
From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:14:01 +0100
From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600
From: Craig Boston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL
Melvyn Sopacua [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Features=0xa7e9f9bfFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CLF
LUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,TM,PBE
+ Features2=0x180EST,TM2
Q: What are those extra features
Enhanced Speedstep, Thermal Monitor 2.
and are they useful? ;-)
Security updates will be maintained for quite a while. However, it
takes manpower to test each proposed security change, so it's very hard
to justify doing them 'indefinitely'. The stated policy from the
security team is 2 years. So they will probably support 5.5 into
2008, but I wanted to
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600
From: Craig Boston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-cpu0: ACPI CPU (4 Cx states) on acpi0
+cpu0: ACPI CPU on acpi0
Q: Guessing that's a formatting difference, rather then 6.x not recognizing
the states (sysctl
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
There will be three FreeBSD 6 releases in 2006.
While this is nice, may I suggest that it is time to put aside/delay one
release cycle and come up with a binary update mechanism supported well by
the OS? Increasing the speed of
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 01:54:34PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote..
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
There will be three FreeBSD 6 releases in 2006.
While this is nice, may I suggest that it is time to put aside/delay one
release cycle and come up with a binary update
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 01:54:34PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote..
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
There will be three FreeBSD 6 releases in 2006.
While this is nice, may I suggest that it is time to put aside/delay one
release cycle and
On Sat, 2005-Dec-17 23:35:34 +0100, Kövesdán Gábor wrote:
I agree. And after all, tracking a security branch isn't too difficult,
...
# cd /usr/src
# patch /path/to/patch
# cd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/cvs/cvsbug
# make obj make depend make make install
# cd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/send-pr
# make obj
From: George Hartzell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:05:51 -0800
Kevin Oberman writes:
[...]
No. There is no conflict between Cx states and EST. Cx states specifies
how deeply the CPU will sleep when idle. EST controls processor speed
and voltage. In most cases, your
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:14:01 +0100
From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600
From: Craig Boston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-cpu0: ACPI CPU (4 Cx states) on acpi0
+cpu0: ACPI CPU on acpi0
Q: Guessing that's a
On Sunday 18 December 2005 01:13, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:14:01 +0100
From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600
From: Craig Boston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-cpu0: ACPI CPU (4 Cx states)
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Sat, 2005-Dec-17 23:35:34 +0100, Kövesdán Gábor wrote:
I agree. And after all, tracking a security branch isn't too difficult,
...
# cd /usr/src
# patch /path/to/patch
# cd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/cvs/cvsbug
# make obj make depend make make install
# cd
On Sat, 2005-Dec-17 18:19:25 -0700, Scott Long wrote:
Peter Jeremy wrote:
I think FreeBSD Update shows the way forward but IMHO there needs to
be an official binary update tool accessible from www.freebsd.org.
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD
Hi,
Scott Long wrote:
Peter Jeremy wrote:
I think FreeBSD Update shows the way forward but IMHO there needs to
be an official binary update tool accessible from www.freebsd.org.
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
All,
The following is the approximate schedule for FreeBSD releases in 2006:
Jan 30: Freeze RELENG_5 and RELENG_6
Mar 20: Release FreeBSD 6.1
Apr 3: Release FreeBSD 5.5
Jun 12: Freeze RELENG_6
Jul 31: Release FreeBSD 6.2
Oct
Gary Kline wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
All,
The following is the approximate schedule for FreeBSD releases in 2006:
Jan 30: Freeze RELENG_5 and RELENG_6
Mar 20: Release FreeBSD 6.1
Apr 3: Release FreeBSD 5.5
Jun 12: Freeze RELENG_6
Jul 31: Release
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like an ambitious schedule... All my FBSD servers
are at least up to 5.3; my laptop is happy at 5.4. I have
what I believe to be a rationalquestion. Why should I go
beyond v5.5?
Because 6 better, faster, more colorful and more fun. :-)
But
Gary Kline wrote:
Sounds like an ambitious schedule... All my FBSD servers
are at least up to 5.3; my laptop is happy at 5.4. I have
what I believe to be a rationalquestion. Why should I go
beyond v5.5?
There is one school of thought that says you shouldn't. If it works for
Gary Kline wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long
wrote:
All,
The following is the approximate schedule for
FreeBSD releases in 2006:
Jan 30: Freeze RELENG_5 and RELENG_6
Mar 20: Release FreeBSD 6.1
Apr 3: Release FreeBSD 5.5
Jun 12: Freeze RELENG_6
Jul 31: Release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:50:05AM -0800, Rob wrote:
Gary Kline wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long
wrote:
All,
The following is the approximate schedule for
FreeBSD releases in 2006:
Sounds like an
On 12/16/05, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FreeBSD 7
We will start preparing for FreeBSD 7.0 in June 2007.
I'll hopefully update the release engineering pages soon to reflect
this. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me and the
rest of the release engineering team.
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 09:57 +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
I've seen reports of a few people who had problems with
6.0, but personally I didn't have any, and I wouldn't
want to go back. In fact I can't think of a single
reason why I wouldn't upgrade a FreeBSD machine to 6.x.
Well, there is
On Fri, December 16, 2005 11:45 am, Frank Mayhar said:
Well, there is _one_ reason. I, too, have (almost) all of my machines
up to 6-stable, with the very notable exception of the one that runs
asterisk. Unfortunately, last I looked, the zaptel drivers hadn't been
ported to 6. I found this
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:31:17AM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
A me too here for 5-Stable.
I have a test PC, that was running 5-Stable using an
additional swapfile to extend swap space. Never any
problems at all with 5.
After upgrading to 6-stable, I got regular hang-ups of
the
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:59:09PM +, Joao Barros wrote:
On 12/16/05, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FreeBSD 7
We will start preparing for FreeBSD 7.0 in June 2007.
I'll hopefully update the release engineering pages soon to reflect
this. If you have any questions, please
Gary Kline wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:59:09PM +, Joao Barros wrote:
On 12/16/05, Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FreeBSD 7
We will start preparing for FreeBSD 7.0 in June 2007.
I'll hopefully update the release engineering pages soon to reflect
this. If you have any
On Friday 16 December 2005 10:41 am, Gary Kline wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:31:17AM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
After upgrading to 6-stable, I got regular hang-ups of
the system (endless loop?) when swapspace is used
extensively. Never happened with 5.
I didn't move until 5
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:41:49AM -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
I didn't move until 5 until 5.2+; it was a major move.
There were lots of things to get-right. So maybe by
6.5, 6 will be granite stable.
(Disclaimer: I am not on re@ but I do watch the bugs come in as one of
the
On Friday 16 December 2005 20:42, Mark Linimon wrote:
And, if someone ever wants to write that 5.X vs 6.X vs 7.X feature list
comparison, now would be a good time :-)
Well, here's a nice start (and a question or two slipped in) - dmesg diff
between two GENERIC kernels 5 vs 6 stable of the
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 09:20:44PM +0100, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
+ Features2=0x180EST,TM2
Q: What are those extra features and are they useful? ;-)
Enhanced Speedstep and Thermal Management. They're useful if you want
to use powerd to conserve power / reduce heat generation. (load the
On Fri, 2005-Dec-16 21:20:44 +0100, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
Features=0xa7e9f9bfFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,MCE,CX8,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,TM,PBE
+ Features2=0x180EST,TM2
Q: What are those extra features and are they useful? ;-)
This is just printing out the CPU
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600
From: Craig Boston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-cpu0: ACPI CPU (4 Cx states) on acpi0
+cpu0: ACPI CPU on acpi0
Q: Guessing that's a formatting difference, rather then 6.x not recognizing
the states (sysctl
On Friday 16 December 2005 21:45, Peter Jeremy wrote:
EST - Enhanced SpeedStep
TM2 - Thermal Monitor 2
Hm, guess I'll play with mbmon to see if this shows more then one monitor
(assuming the 2 is the number of, not the protocol version).
-pci0: serial bus, USB at device 29.7 (no driver
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:31:17AM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
I have to add my vote for 6, as did someone else in an earlier post.
Like some others, I always found 5.x a bit slower than 4.x (No
benchmarks, completely subjective.) From the very beginning, I've found
6.x to be stable and
Kevin Oberman writes:
[...]
No. There is no conflict between Cx states and EST. Cx states specifies
how deeply the CPU will sleep when idle. EST controls processor speed
and voltage. In most cases, your REALLY want to use both of these. They
are very significant in saving power. (Of
Gary Kline wrote:
Are you volunteering to post the TODO lists here on -stable
every N months? I think it's a great idea to have some
clues about where we're going, or hope to be going.
No I am not. But you are right on the it's a great idea to have some
clues about
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:59:09PM + I heard the voice of
Joao Barros, and lo! it spake thus:
There have been some questions on the lists about what to expect
from release x.y and I personnally have always looked at the TODO
list like http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.0R/todo.html
It's
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 01:42:55PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:41:49AM -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
I didn't move until 5 until 5.2+; it was a major move.
There were lots of things to get-right. So maybe by
6.5, 6 will be granite stable.
(Disclaimer: I
All,
The following is the approximate schedule for FreeBSD releases in 2006:
Jan 30: Freeze RELENG_5 and RELENG_6
Mar 20: Release FreeBSD 6.1
Apr 3: Release FreeBSD 5.5
Jun 12: Freeze RELENG_6
Jul 31: Release FreeBSD 6.2
Oct 23: Freeze RELENG_6
Dec 11: Release FreeBSD 6.3
A 'freeze' means
69 matches
Mail list logo
