On 24 November 2012, at 16:36, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 11/24/2012 05:58 PM, Erich Dollansky wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:38:35 -0600
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>> I am currently running FBSD 8.3-STABLE on a production server that
>>> provides http, dns, smtp, and so on for a sma
--On November 24, 2012 10:38:35 AM -0600 Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
I am currently running FBSD 8.3-STABLE on a production server that
provides http, dns, smtp, and so on for a small domain. This is not
a high arrival rate environment but it does need to be rock solid (which
FBSD 4-8 have been).
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 11/24/2012 03:48 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
It is not however sufficient to get you a completely upgraded system:
you will still have to re-install all of your ports. Otherwise, as you
end up trying to upgrade ports by ones and twos over time, you'll
On 11/24/2012 06:16 PM, Shane Ambler wrote:
On 25/11/2012 04:06, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
But I have had essentially no problems doing in-place major rev
updates with FreeBSD thus far. The only breakage I am worried about
now is whether the new compiler change breaks things that used to
work just f
On 11/24/2012 05:58 PM, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:38:35 -0600
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I am currently running FBSD 8.3-STABLE on a production server that
provides http, dns, smtp, and so on for a small domain. This is not
a high arrival rate environment but it does need to
On 25/11/2012 04:06, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
But I have had essentially no problems doing in-place major rev
updates with FreeBSD thus far. The only breakage I am worried about
now is whether the new compiler change breaks things that used to
work just fine. For example, will my make.conf settings
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:38:35 -0600
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I am currently running FBSD 8.3-STABLE on a production server that
> provides http, dns, smtp, and so on for a small domain. This is not
> a high arrival rate environment but it does need to be rock solid
> (which FBSD 4-8 have been).
On 11/24/2012 03:48 PM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
It is not however sufficient to get you a completely upgraded system:
you will still have to re-install all of your ports. Otherwise, as you
end up trying to upgrade ports by ones and twos over time, you'll end up
with a complete rat's nest of contra
On 24/11/2012 16:38, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I am contemplating moving to the FBSD 9 family. Is this branch ready
> for production or should I wait a while yet? I ordinarily avoid x.0
> releases of anything and I know 9.1 is soon going to be with us.
9-STABLE works for me. I've run into a few qui
Tim Daneliuk writes:
> On 11/24/2012 11:19 AM, Lucas B. Cohen wrote:
>> I wouldn't
>> blindly trust and drop an operating system on production servers, no
>> matter how good the feedback from outside my organization sounds.
>
> In general, I'd agree with you. Certainly, that's been the case
> wi
On 11/24/2012 11:19 AM, Lucas B. Cohen wrote:
I wouldn't
blindly trust and drop an operating system on production servers, no
matter how good the feedback from outside my organization sounds.
In general, I'd agree with you. Certainly, that's been the case
with Linux, AIX, and so on over the ye
On 2012.11.24 17:38, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I am contemplating moving to the FBSD 9 family. Is this branch ready
> for production or should I wait a while yet?
This probably won't help much, but I wouldn't call any system
"production ready" until I've tested it as thoroughly as possible and
quali
I am currently running FBSD 8.3-STABLE on a production server that
provides http, dns, smtp, and so on for a small domain. This is not
a high arrival rate environment but it does need to be rock solid (which
FBSD 4-8 have been).
I am contemplating moving to the FBSD 9 family. Is this branch rea
13 matches
Mail list logo