Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:38:10 -0400 From: "Francisco Reyes" <fran@reyes.somos.net> To: "FreeBSd Chat list" <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Is Stable really stable? Message-ID: <200007130542.BAA36692@vulcan.addy.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
For many years while in the "playing" stage with FreeBSD I never managed more than one FreeBSD computer.I didn't follow stable and when there was a new version I just did a fresh install. As the number of FreeBSD computers that I manage grew and I started to track "Stable" changes seemed like trouble more and more. The recent changes in the way of making new kernels plus the additions of shutdown calling scripts in the rc.d directories seem nothing short of an admin nightmare. I only manage 7 FreeBSD computers and I find it a pain to have to go through all of them and make all the changes in the rc.d scripts plus the new buildworld/kernel procedure seems more cumbersome too.. These computers are not even on same locations so NFS mounting to share certain diretories (/usr/, /obj) is not a viable option to ease the pain. My dream "Stable" branch is one where I can just recompile sources and have the kernel install.. in the same way as long as there isn't a new version. I don't think "surprises" are a good thing in a "stable" branch. Things seem to be getting to the point where it would be easier to find ways to do fresh installs when there is a new version than to track Stable. francisco Moderator of the Corporate BSD list http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007130542.BAA36692>