May I ask 'other' upgrade questions?
This is concerned with -current.
1, How does the naming works? Is the current -current tree named as
4.1-current? I downloaded the snapshots of -current off ftp mirror,
and they are all 41: cd41.iso, etc41.tgz, etc... will they become
cd42.iso and
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:19:38AM +1000, Sunnz wrote:
May I ask 'other' upgrade questions?
This is concerned with -current.
1, How does the naming works? Is the current -current tree named as
4.1-current? I downloaded the snapshots of -current off ftp mirror,
and they are all 41:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Sunnz
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:20 AM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not
supported
May I ask 'other' upgrade questions?
This is
On Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 01:55:42 -0700, Darren Spruell wrote:
If your requirement is to maintain multiple systems concurrently, you
may be better served (and probably should consider) keeping everything
even and exact by using release(8) to build binary updates and apply
them everywhere. This
On 2007/03/22 00:07, Maurice Janssen wrote:
Is it OK to untar the .tgz files on a running system (after rebooting
with the new kernel of course) or is it recommended to boot in single
user mode?
See 'upgrading without install media' in the closest Upgrade Guide
RStachowiak wrote:
On 18/03/07, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The question was not about normal upgrade procedure (which I'm perfectly
aware of ) but about internal working of system during upgrade phase to
let me understand it better and comprehend all corner cases.
The formal
On 3/18/07, Darren Spruell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/18/07, Maurice Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, March 16, 2007 at 19:34:59 -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Running A.B-RELEASE+Patches is very similar to A.B-STABLE since the
user applied patches (available on the errata.html
On Friday, March 16, 2007 at 19:34:59 -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Running A.B-RELEASE+Patches is very similar to A.B-STABLE since the
user applied patches (available on the errata.html page) are included
withing the -STABLE branch of cvs but the differences is the -STABLE
branch of cvs also
On 3/18/07, Maurice Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, March 16, 2007 at 19:34:59 -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Running A.B-RELEASE+Patches is very similar to A.B-STABLE since the
user applied patches (available on the errata.html page) are included
withing the -STABLE branch of cvs but
On Sunday 18 March 2007 01:55, Darren Spruell wrote:
On 3/18/07, Maurice Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, March 16, 2007 at 19:34:59 -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Running A.B-RELEASE+Patches is very similar to A.B-STABLE
since the user applied patches (available on the errata.html
Just a quick question, say if you got 3.9-stable can you binary
upgrade it to 4.0-release using the CD? (Or, perhaps, FTP?)
2007/3/18, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sunday 18 March 2007 01:55, Darren Spruell wrote:
On 3/18/07, Maurice Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday, March
Sunnz wrote:
Just a quick question, say if you got 3.9-stable can you binary
upgrade it to 4.0-release using the CD? (Or, perhaps, FTP?)
yes, updates from one version to the next are supported. to do so, boot
from the install media and choose the upgrade option. It is not
important if the
On Sunday 18 March 2007 06:15, Sunnz wrote:
Just a quick question, say if you got 3.9-stable can you binary
upgrade it to 4.0-release using the CD? (Or, perhaps, FTP?)
Yep. And the topic of upgrading is covered very well by the FAQ.
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade40.html
Personally, I never
On 18/03/07, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may want to note that *my* approach of running -STABLE is considered
by many on this list to be unnecessarily conservative and I have to
admit they are probably right. Unlike other projects, the -CURRENT
branch of OpenBSD is extremely
On 3/18/07, RStachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Let's assume I use -STABLE 4.0, and after 4.1 is release I'll do checkout
of STABLE 4.1 - what are the steps to do the upgrade then?
Moving from one release to another should only be done via binary
upgrades. Don't do a CVS checkout + upgrade
RStachowiak wrote:
On 18/03/07, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may want to note that *my* approach of running -STABLE is considered
by many on this list to be unnecessarily conservative and I have to
admit they are probably right. Unlike other projects, the -CURRENT
branch of
On 18/03/07, Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Let's assume I use -CURRENT, and new release is done (for example
coming
4.1). What is a proper procedure to do at such point? Is simple ;) cvs
up,
recompile, install, change configuration file according do upgrade
manual,
On Sunday 18 March 2007 14:20, RStachowiak wrote:
NO! (at least, not in general...)
Re-read faq5.html a few times until it all makes sense...
You UPGRADE by installing the closest available binary. Always.
The question was not about normal upgrade procedure (which I'm
perfectly aware
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Mike Piety wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:15:24 +0100
Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
I want to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
I want to upgrade my 4.0-release system to get rid of the ipv6 remote
vulnerability. I
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:31:05 +0100
Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/3/16, Mike Piety [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
uh, why don't you just load your release bsd.rd at the boot prompt,
and do an upgrade to 4.0, using the ftp method? This would install
4.0- stable, and would be a lot
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
I want to upgrade my 4.0-release system to get rid of the ipv6 remote
vulnerability. I
Karel Kulhavy wrote:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
I want to upgrade my 4.0-release system to get rid of the ipv6 remote
vulnerability. I understood it's possible only by
Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
I want to upgrade my 4.0-release system to get rid of the ipv6 remote
vulnerability. I understood
Karel Kulhavy wrote:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
I want to upgrade my 4.0-release system to get rid of the ipv6 remote
vulnerability. I understood it's possible only by
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:15:24 +0100
Karel Kulhavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
I want to upgrade my 4.0-release system to get rid of the ipv6
On 2007/03/16 21:15, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
system != kernel. Some OS advise people to 'make world' as a way to
upgrade to a new release, this
Just as a note, when I first read the section 5.2 of the FAQ I was
also a bit confused. The line Compiling your own system as a way of
upgrading it is not supported. made think that maybe following the
-stable branch wasn't supported. But after doing more research I
figured that following -stable
On Friday 16 March 2007 16:15:24 Karel Kulhavy wrote:
Some reasons why NOT to build from source:
[...]
Compiling your own system as a way of upgrading it is not supported.
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
I want to upgrade my 4.0-release system to get rid of the ipv6 remote
vulnerability. I
2007/3/16, Mike Piety [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
uh, why don't you just load your release bsd.rd at the boot prompt, and
do an upgrade to 4.0, using the ftp method? This would install 4.0-
stable, and would be a lot faster.
No. There are no new kernels (i.e. stable) available from the servers.
Best
On Friday 16 March 2007 13:51, Nick Holland wrote:
Read the rest of that page... you are confusing upGRADING and
upDATING.
Unfortunately, confusing the two terms, upGRADING and upDATING, is very
easy to do mainly because of our usage of the terms is not particularly
clear.
For each numbered
On 3/16/07, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 16 March 2007 13:51, Nick Holland wrote:
Read the rest of that page... you are confusing upGRADING and
upDATING.
Unfortunately, confusing the two terms, upGRADING and upDATING, is very
easy to do mainly because of our usage of the
On Friday 16 March 2007 20:07, Darren Spruell wrote:
On 3/16/07, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 16 March 2007 13:51, Nick Holland wrote:
Read the rest of that page... you are confusing upGRADING and
upDATING.
Unfortunately, confusing the two terms, upGRADING and
33 matches
Mail list logo
