Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 23:28:28 +0300 From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@iv.nn.kiev.ua> To: "Alexey V. Neyman" <avn@any.ru> Cc: "Eugene M. Kim" <ab@astralblue.net>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Old compiler (3.3-stable -> 4->stable) Message-ID: <20010516232828.A411@iv.nn.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0105161132110.14552-100000@srv2.any>; from avn@any.ru on Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:41:59AM %2B0400 References: <20010516004223.A800@iv.nn.kiev.ua> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0105161132110.14552-100000@srv2.any>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:41:59, avn (Alexey V. Neyman) wrote about "Re: Old compiler (3.3-stable -> 4->stable)": > >It is better now to do binary upgrade from 3.x to 4.3, if your Internet > >connection allows to download `bin' package (~50M). (But for mergemaster > >you must untar or cvsup full sources.) Upgrade via `make world' will > >fail in too many places, such as perl, gperf & groff, kernel... > I found the following sequence to be rather fail-safe: > 3.5.1-R -> 4.2-R -> 4.3-S, I tested it a few times and it have not failed > me. Of course, but is upgrade from source such important to you, preferrable than having secure system? 4.2-R is insecure, and you must use one additional make_world step which makes your system containing well-known holes for a few hours. I don't discuss here possibility of such way, but say that binary upgrade is better now. One can also compare this with the way needed to upgrade via make world chain from 2.2 to 4.3: one of the steps is 3.0, which is both insecure and unstable. I don't know any server in my epsilon environ which was upgraded from 2.2 in such way. Only binary upgrades. /netch To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010516232828.A411>