On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:08:57 +0200 Henning Brauer <lists-open...@bsws.de> wrote:
> * Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1i...@yahoo.co.uk> [2010-09-15 18:14]: > > > Does anyone know that may I use 4.7 instalation CD to install 4.8 sets ? > > Yep, but the shasums will fail, however it will continue and tell you > > them, so you can verify manually. > > sigh. sometimes it is better to say nothing. especially instead of > saying bullshit. > the 4.7 installer will not install 4.8. one reason, to begin with, is > that it looks for base47.tgz and not base48.tgz. but there is more, > just renaming the files won't cut it either. > Worked for me many times when testing for 4.7 sets with a 4.6 image that the host already had in it's library. Have the install scripts changed again? I know it's not supported but the vast vast majority of the time, it should work just fine. I certainly wasn't advising to use 4.8 stable now, as he said, the sets aren't available, just trying to give the facts. I also certainly feel the advocacy for running current is too high, it is often suggested without also saying they should follow src changes and ports changes. Unless you need a new feature or certain port like firefox, surely stable is the most stable and aside from checking ports the easiest option and likely less reboots and executions as root. > and until release day there won't be any patches > (security/reliability) for 4.8, running that is about as clever as > running in a hamster wheel. Good point, I guess it's a good job you can't get the sets, though a security problem in a port is far more likely, which I mentioned. Aside from ssl I'm struggling to think of one that's truly worried me. I've usually disabled things like ipv6, when it's been a problem.
