On 2014-09-07, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs wrote:
Nowadays, does one need to use sysmerge at all?
yes.
to take a particular case which some readers here will need to know about:
if updating from code older than a month or two ago to 5.6 or -current, your
startup scripts will be semi-broken until
Nowadays, does one need to use sysmerge at all?
Zoran
On September 7, 2014 6:04:46 AM CEST, Zoran Kolic zko...@sbb.rs wrote:
Nowadays, does one need to use sysmerge at all?
Yes. Some files are still actually merged, including for example
/etc/{master.passwd,group}
/Alexander
Zoran
How will update look like regarding sysmerge?
Lattest man for sysmerge(8) lost s flag. Since
I use X, it will still need -x xetc56.tgz?
Best regards
Zoran
On 8/28/2014 8:13 AM, Zoran Kolic wrote:
How will update look like regarding sysmerge?
Lattest man for sysmerge(8) lost s flag. Since
I use X, it will still need -x xetc56.tgz?
I upgraded to the 26 August snapshot (amd64) yesterday. I used:
sysmerge -x xetc56.tgz
and all went
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Scott Vanderbilt li...@datagenic.com wrote:
I upgraded to the 26 August snapshot (amd64) yesterday. I used:
sysmerge -x xetc56.tgz
and all went successfully.
I just upgraded to the same snapshot successfully. One further note:
if you've downloaded the sets
I upgraded to the 26 August snapshot (amd64) yesterday. I used:
sysmerge -x xetc56.tgz
and all went successfully.
Thanks.
But apparently the xetc set is going away very soon, too, so if you
wait a day or two you might avoid this complication altogether.
For some reason I will
On 8/28/2014 8:54 PM, Zoran Kolic wrote:
I upgraded to the 26 August snapshot (amd64) yesterday. I used:
sysmerge -x xetc56.tgz
and all went successfully.
Thanks.
But apparently the xetc set is going away very soon, too, so if you
wait a day or two you might avoid this complication
Well as of the Aug28th snapshot it gets even easier, options are just -bdp.
Perfect for lazy typists like myself who also tend to fat-finger often ;)
Truly painless upgrade process.
Hi,
The files http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/SHA256[.sig]
don't have a hash for etc56.tgz and the etc56.tgz file is also older that
the other base files. Is this an error or did I miss something?
Kind regards,
Martijn Rijkeboer
* Martijn Rijkeboer mart...@bunix.org [2014-08-27 19:49]:
The files http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/SHA256[.sig]
don't have a hash for etc56.tgz and the etc56.tgz file is also older that
the other base files. Is this an error or did I miss something?
the etc set goes away.
mart...@bunix.org (Martijn Rijkeboer), 2014.08.27 (Wed) 19:47 (CEST):
The files http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/SHA256[.sig]
don't have a hash for etc56.tgz and the etc56.tgz file is also older that
the other base files. Is this an error or did I miss something?
I thought
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:47:33 +0200, Martijn Rijkeboer
mart...@bunix.org wrote:
Hi,
The files
http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/SHA256[.sig] don't
have a hash for etc56.tgz and the etc56.tgz file is also older that
the other base files. Is this an error or did I miss
The files
http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/SHA256[.sig]
don't have a hash for etc56.tgz and the etc56.tgz file is also older
that
the other base files. Is this an error or did I miss something?
the etc set goes away.
Thanks, that explains...
Kind regards,
Martijn
The files
http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/SHA256[.sig] don't
have a hash for etc56.tgz and the etc56.tgz file is also older that
the other base files. Is this an error or did I miss something?
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvsm=140908438211799w=2
Thanks, apparently I wasn't
The files http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/SHA256[.sig]
don't have a hash for etc56.tgz and the etc56.tgz file is also older that
the other base files. Is this an error or did I miss something?
etc.tgz is now inside the base, hiding inside /usr/share
The old files will show
16 matches
Mail list logo
