From owner-freebsd-stable  Sun Sep  7 01:15:39 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA06974
          for stable-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.u-net.net (mail.u-net.net [194.119.128.80])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA06968
          for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jemima [194.119.190.214] 
	by mail.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.62 #6)
	id 0x7cOg-0005i3-00; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:08:43 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970907091358.007b8db0@aire.open.ac.uk>
X-Sender: mikez@aire.open.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 09:13:58 +0100
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
From: Mike Zanker <A.M.Zanker@open.ac.uk>
Subject: Tracking 2.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Having installed FreeBSD 2.2.2 from the WC CDs I'd now like to start
tracking the stable 2.2 source. I've read handbook and FAQ but I'm still a
little unsure where to start. Is it just a case of getting the latest 30+
MB source distribution then keeping up to date with the patches?

I did a "make world" on my 2.2.2 system just to make sure that there were
no nasty surprises. Everything worked fine except that I noticed that it
didn't build a kernel. This made me wonder, then, if I download the latest
stable 2.2 code which do I build and install first, the kernel or the
binaries?

I'd be grateful for any comments/advice.

Regards,

Mike
-- 
Mike Zanker                | Email: A.M.Zanker@open.ac.uk
Network Services Group     | Tel  : +44 1908 652726
The Open University        | Fax  : +44 1908 652193
Milton Keynes, UK          | PGP public key available