From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 28 07:38:07 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2643106564A for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:38:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F5D8FC14 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:38:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-226-229.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.226.229]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29C73D310; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:38:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id o8S7c4kG006381; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:38:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:38:04 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Ryan Coleman Message-Id: <20100928093804.f61d6d58.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <5711C7AE-92FD-4ECA-B0DC-2CF91A10B809@cwis.biz> References: <20100926123019.GA41450@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4C9F3BBA.2060809@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4ca03df2.lQjjNnRah4BJhw4Y%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <201009271016.26902.jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk> <4ca19305.qVDnt7/ifQhIrQ0c%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <5711C7AE-92FD-4ECA-B0DC-2CF91A10B809@cwis.biz> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Free BSD 8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:38:07 -0000 On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 02:24:26 -0500, Ryan Coleman wrote: > As I understand it: The OS itself is stable, but the ports are > constantly in flux and may be issues. Not exactly. It depends on which update road you follow. Say, you use freebsd-update (the binary update), or use c(v)sup to track -RELEASE (including the security patches), your OS is stable. Certain points in time can be addressed by a specific patch level, e. g. -RELEASE-p1 for the first one, -RELEASE-p2 for the second one, and so on. If you track -STABLE by using c(v)sup (doesn't work with the binary freebsd-update!), your OS is also stable. There is no further "versioning" as with the patch levels; the date decides. As you can't binary upgrade here, compiling yourself is needed. But if you track -CURRENT (means -HEAD), it *might* be that the OS won't even compile, or runs unstable. This is due to the fact that *this* branch does sometimes include experimental changes or features that are tested, and maybe removed later on. It's obvious that you need to retrieve the sources and compile your- self in this case, too. Ports, on the other hand, are not related to the OS version. If you use -RELEASE for example, you can, if it fits your needs, stay with the default ports tree that has been "issued" the same time the release came out. This is the state you'll find on the installation media. You can also use the precompiled packages. If you decide to upgrade your ports tree because you need newer versions or specific features, it *may* be possible that a certain point in time of -RELEASE is not sufficient, and this might force you to change your road to follow -STABLE. This can either be the case by installing from an updated ports tree or from Latest/ packages (instead of RELEASE one's). Summary: -RELEASE and -STABLE are stable, -CURRENT or -HEAD do not neccessarily have to be. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...