Ramiro Aceves <[email protected]> writes: > El 11/6/26 a las 16:17, Greg Troxel escribió: >> Ramiro Aceves <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Thanks so much Robert for your explanation, I appreciatte it very much >>> and I understand it better now. I am going to try NetBSD-11 and see >>> what happens. >> The real question is what are you trying to do. > > I was doing anything serious, I was bored and only tried to compile > full NetBSD from Linux, just as an exercise following the NetBSD Guide > (it sounds cool to compile a full OS from another OS). I choose > NetBSD-current just for choosing something and see what happened.
Totally reasonable to build just to build. it ought to work. >> If you want the very latest, and you are ok with running into build >> issue, waiting, and retrying, and perhaps trouble with the system when >> booted, and are ok with using /rescue and/or booting off saved bootable >> media, then you can of course run current if you want. > > No, I do not have the expertise to fight with the OS at such level ;-) You don't need to deal with those things to build. And if you have a spare computer, or you set up a VM (qemu/nvmm, or under some other OS), you can install it and try it. It is only when you have valuable data on it, or you need it to work, that you might have troubles. I have a box running netbsd-11 and xen. It has 5 domU systems, most of amd64/i386 x 9/10/11 (but not i386-11). I use it to build packages, for systems I have elsewhere, and for the next os versions of those systems. I'm on the verge of dropping 9 and adding current. I use to have amd64 current but I took the exit ramp to netbsd-11 when it branched. I didn't mean to discourage you from trying things, only to caution you that if you are relying on a system working and it being not working would inconvenience you, current is not the best choice. If you are totally fine with it not working, it's just fine.
