From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 12 16:40:16 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F55116A405 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 16:40:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [69.147.83.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10D913C45D for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 16:40:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l4CGeFNV049952 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 16:40:15 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id l4CGeFld049949; Sat, 12 May 2007 16:40:15 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:40:15 GMT Message-Id: <200705121640.l4CGeFld049949@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org From: Pav Lucistnik Cc: Subject: Re: docs/84154: Handbook somewhat off in use of /boot/kernel.old X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Pav Lucistnik List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:40:16 -0000 The following reply was made to PR docs/84154; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Pav Lucistnik To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, garys@opusnet.com Cc: Subject: Re: docs/84154: Handbook somewhat off in use of /boot/kernel.old Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 18:38:20 +0200 I don't think these paragraphs needs further clarification. In the first case, we don't need to complicate the matters by pointing out the kernel.old creation is conditional. It's just not important in the context of telling the user installkernel installs new kernel into /boot/kernel. In the second case, we want to stress to user that kernel.old cannot be trusted and that the user should do his own kernel.good copy. The debated change made kernel.old a bit more trustworthy, but I don't think we need to relax our message to user here. Let him be scared, we can afford a little lie (simplification, really) here. -- Pav Lucistnik It whines, glows and fades...