Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:14:58 -0600 From: "E.S." <bsdterm@HotPOP.com> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: make buildkernel says device atapicam is unknown!!?? -- SUCCESS Message-ID: <200211141314.58800.bsdterm@HotPOP.com> In-Reply-To: <20021114083247.GH18778@vectors.cx> References: <200211132359.26336.bsdterm@HotPOP.com> <200211140219.11408.bsdterm@HotPOP.com> <20021114083247.GH18778@vectors.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, I decided to cvsup to -STABLE last night, and I was able to build world, kernel, installkernel, and installworld, and I am now typing this on my 4.7 box with the official NVIDIA driver on my first monitor and an old Matrox Mystique running on another monitor. :) UT2003 runs (mostly) great on my P733, 512MB RAM, Geforce256SDR. A bit of choppiness, but I think it's my now-obsolete hardware more than anything... Oh, and atapicam works too! Thanks guys! FreeBSD seriously rocks... -ES Happy BSD user once again... On Thursday 14 November 2002 02:32 am, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >> (11.14.2002 @ 0019 PST): E.S. said, in 4.8K: << > > > > I've considered it, but isn't -STABLE a bit less stable than -RELEASE, > > since the source in it is newer? > > > >> end of "Re: make buildkernel says device atapicam is unknown!!??" from > >> E.S. << > > -RELEASE is just a snapshot of -STABLE at a specific point in time. In > general, -STABLE is supposed to remain stable enough to be a -RELEASE at > nearly any given point in time. Theoretically. Sortof. > > I have *never* had -STABLE not boot up for me, or cause the massive > experimental problems that one might associate with -CURRENT. > > /Adam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200211141314.58800.bsdterm>