From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 24 12:57:04 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD73F16A401 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:57:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from javier@kjsl.com) Received: from skywagon.kjsl.com (skywagon.kjsl.com [69.36.240.252]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB65F13C469 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:57:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from javier@kjsl.com) Received: from [199.46.16.11] (rtp-isp-nat1.cisco.com [64.102.254.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: javier) by skywagon.kjsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF672A68D7; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:57:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20070124125233.1e3a8ec1@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <45B4D5FA.7000000@poughkeepsieschools.org> <45B4F7FA.8020308@freemail.hu> <20070124125233.1e3a8ec1@gumby.homeunix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5C005D0A-9E3D-4820-AF56-5E6FCBECAC05@kjsl.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Javier Henderson Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:57:01 -0500 To: RW X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3 -> 6.2 should work right? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:57:04 -0000 On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:52 AM, RW wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:44:26 +0100 > Nagy L=E1szl=F3 Zsolt wrote: > >> By the way, updating a system from 5 to 6 is a headache. (Updating >> from 4 to 5 is much easier.) Many will suggest (including me) to >> install your new 6.2 system from binaries, and then transfer your >> programs and users, if possible. > > That an odd thing to say. The major version number was only bumped =20 > to 6 > because some interfaces changed. I remember it as a particularly easy > upgrade, simpler than the average 5.x to 5.x+1 upgrade. The 4.x to 5.x > upgrade was one of the most radical. I will have to agree. I did a remote upgrade of a system running 5.5-=20 RELEASE to 6.2-RELEASE last week, without console access (ie, I had =20 to reboot into multi-user mode a few times during the process) and it =20= worked just fine. -jav