Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:53:00 -0700 From: Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us> To: "Stable" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD Message-ID: <15157.18428.497356.447656@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> In-Reply-To: <001201c0fc46$f553e440$0408a8c0@kiste> References: <JBEOKPCEMKJLMJAKBECCGENKDBAA.jwatkins@firstplan.com> <15155.29806.145760.832648@guru.mired.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20010623150807.034a09a0@24.0.95.106> <15157.11221.593513.478892@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> <001201c0fc46$f553e440$0408a8c0@kiste>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Nottebrock writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Kelsey" <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us> > To: "Stable" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 1:52 AM > Subject: RE: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD > > > > You make some very good points. For you, like 99% of Linux users, you > > are better off never attempting to cvsup or to track stable. > > [...] > > I just like to say that my experience with tracking stable is quite > positive. I installed FreeBSD 4.2-Release with the boot floppies and a > cdrom made from the ISO-image on an Intel 430-HX based PC with an oldish > 2x cdrom drive and just 8 megs of ram (nowadays 24 megs of ram, running > sendmail, uw-imap, samba, & dante, the latter three all compiled from the > ports collection). I made my first cvsup when 4.2 was just in the process > of being frozen to 4.3-Release, so I got 4.3-RC, which ran quite happily > until yesterday, when i cvsup'd again to get myself a 4.3-STABLE > without > [snip] I personally have no problem tracking either current or stable. The first time I installed FreeBSd, I accidentally cvsup'd to current, but once I realized my mistake, I basically did not mind. I can keep up with the problems listed on the mailing list and have done quite a bit of source-level work on various flavors of UNIX, so it was no big deal. If someone has a good grasp of make and debugging, recompiling from source is no big deal. > Almost there already. Take a look at the last SA (SA-01:40.fts), it > features an (experimental) binary security fix, which comes in the form of > a package. I think we need to change the handbook to indicate the pitfalls inherent in attempting to track stable or current via cvsup or other source updating. Even tracking RELEASE_X_Y is problematic since it involves recompiling from source, which is, of course the only way to customize your kernel. Perhaps GENERIC needs to be changed to use kld so that everyone gets into the habit of using modules instead of creating a custom config file and recompiling the kernel. With the anectdotal evidence of the vast number of people who actually run GENERIC kernels, perhaps this is another way to allow relatively easier customization without major source recompiles. I really like being able to recompile from source, but it is definitely not for everyone. In order to get to a wider user base, we need more and better binary distributions and updates, especially binary security updates. Also, if we discourage new users from using the source recompile route, we may cut down on the number of messages complaining of getting -RC or -BETA when they wanted -STABLE! /Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15157.18428.497356.447656>