Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 11:36:51 -0600 From: Chris <racerx@makeworld.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Where is 4.9-STABLE? Message-ID: <200403061136.51822.racerx@makeworld.com> In-Reply-To: <200403061129.13742.racerx@makeworld.com> References: <20040306145348.B69AD2B4DAA@mail.evilcoder.org> <200403061725.I26HPACF063197@asarian-host.net> <200403061129.13742.racerx@makeworld.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 06 March 2004 11:29 am, Chris wrote: > On Saturday 06 March 2004 11:25 am, Mark wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kirk Strauser" <kirk@strauser.com> > > To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> > > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:08 PM > > Subject: Re: Where is 4.9-STABLE? > > > > > At 2004-03-06T14:53:44Z, "Remko Lodder" <remko@elvandar.org> writes: > > > > and do a make world > > > > > > Mark: don't literally do a "make world". Follow the instructions > > > in /usr/src/UPDATING instead. > > Doing a make world is perfectly acceptable. It's considered the > "traditional" way of doing things, and accomplishes the same results. > > If your going to inform users NOT to do one way opposed to another, at > least give specifics as to why you feel that way. To follow up - the reason for the UPDATING file and the layout of rebuilding your system is to guide users that are upgrading from 4.x to 5.x You will see vast changes in the way the kernel is handled in 5.x along with /dev However, reading that file explains this in detail. Simply moving from 4.9-RELEASE to 4.9-STABLE and the patches isn't considered a major upgrade. A simple rebuild of the kernel and a simple make world does work well in this instance. -- Best regards, Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200403061136.51822.racerx>