Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:28:22 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Kenneth Culver <culverk@sweetdreamsracing.biz> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3-RELEASE TODO Message-ID: <41110EA6.9020709@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040804103324.sqsg48s40c48g444@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz> References: <200408040743.i747hs3m000419@pooker.samsco.org> <20040804102101.5e0f4023.steve@sohara.org> <4110DFC7.8000200@freebsd.org> <20040804103324.sqsg48s40c48g444@www.sweetdreamsracing.biz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kenneth Culver wrote: > Quoting Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>: > >> Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 01:43:54 -0600 (MDT) >>> Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> | Source upgrade | Not done | David Schultz | problematic. >>>> The | >>>> | incompatibility | | | 5.3 world >>>> sources | >>>> | | | | must be >>>> buildable | >>>> | | | | and >>>> installable | >>>> | | | | from a >>>> 5.2.1 | >>>> | | | | >>>> system. | >>> >>> >>> >>> Should they not also be buildable and installable from a 4.10 or >>> 4.11 system >>> in order to preserve the -stable upgrade route ? >>> >> >> This would be good, yes, but there are so many other gotchas with that >> upgrade path that I don't consider it a show-stopper for it not to work. >> Once the 5.2 -> 5.3 path is fixed, then we can focus on 4.x -> 5.3 path. >> >> Scott > > > Just to let people know, I recently installed from 5.2.1, then updated to > -CURRENT via source without a single problem. So what's not working here? > > Ken > > Hmm, maybe I'm mis-informed then. I thought that snapshots.jp.freebsd.org was having problems building the 5.2-CURRENT sources because it's world was too old, and that this pointed to a source upgrade problem. I guess we need clarification here. David? Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41110EA6.9020709>