On Tue, December 6, 2005 19:44, Doug Barton wrote: > On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, secmgr wrote: > >> Not to belabour this, but the 6.0 release notes do specificly say 5.3 >> RELEASE >> and newer. > > 5.4-STABLE is newer. :) > >> "Source upgrades to FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE are only supported from FreeBSD >> 5.3-RELEASE or later. Users of older systems wanting to upgrade >> 6.0-RELEASE >> will need to update to FreeBSD 5.3 or newer first, then to FreeBSD >> 6.0-RELEASE." > > How does this change to UPDATING in RELENG_6 look to you: > > Index: UPDATING > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/UPDATING,v > retrieving revision 1.416.2.7 > diff -u -r1.416.2.7 UPDATING > --- UPDATING 1 Nov 2005 23:44:40 -0000 1.416.2.7 > +++ UPDATING 7 Dec 2005 00:42:04 -0000 > @@ -229,7 +229,13 @@ > page for more details. > > Due to several updates to the build infrastructure, source > - upgrades from versions prior to 5.3 no longer supported. > + upgrades from versions prior to 5.4-STABLE are not likely > + to succeed.
Sorry to butt in but.. Doesn't the definition of -STABLE change, for all intents and purposes, by the minute? What next, "versions prior to 5.4-STABLE as of YYYYMMDD ...."? > + > + When upgrading from one major version to another, it is > + generally best to upgrade to the latest code in the branch > + currently installed first, then do another upgrade to the > + new branch. This is getting closer to the truth. Why don't you just say "update to the most recent RELENG_5 before attempting." Future proof, no room for confusion. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"