Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 17:08:02 -0500 From: Gary Schrock <root@eyelab.psy.msu.edu> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *HEADS UP* Correction to previous postings. Message-ID: <199803092215.RAA02011@eyelab.psy.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980309163546.17816B-100000@aries.fortean.com > References: <199803091924.OAA01358@eyelab.psy.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:58 PM 3/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >On the FreeBSD highway, -STABLE is one of the middle lanes. Slower >traffic should keep right... ie: -RELEASE (in the US that is :) >> I also find the attitude about people who have to do remote updates a bit >> disconcerting. Some of us have no choice. >I'm in the same boat here, too. Again, that machine does *NOT* track >-STABLE. It runs -STABLE but only after I'm damn well sure I won't be >driving 45 minutes to go and reboot it. Unfortunately, when security type fixes go in it's then important to do the upgrade. Quite honestly, that's about the only time the machines I'm responsible for get updated. But it's also critical that those changes go in. I see no real reason that this change *needs* to be in -stable. Maybe release it as a set of patches that you can apply, but it should stay in -current (if it's there, I'd have to look at my home machine's freebsd installation to see what the fstab looks like). (I also only update the remote machine after I've done the update to my office machines that run freebsd as an extra measure of caution, but I still feel that this change is an unneeded risk for those that have to update remotely.) I'm not trying to attack anyone personally, although it might sound like that. I just don't feel that this is the wisest move. Gary Schrock root@eyelab.msu.edu 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?199803092215.RAA02011>