> On 20 June 2017, at 10:31, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>
> Zoran Kolic wrote on 2017/06/20 17:12:
>>> Generally (and previously) the advice is to go via the next major version so
>>> you should go:
>>>
>>> 9.3 -> 10.x -> 11.x not 9.3 -> 11.x
>>
>> Exactelly what I want to
I went from 9 to 11 without issue with the make work/kernel method and
rebuilt all the ports.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
> Zoran Kolic wrote on 2017/06/20 17:12:
>>>
>>> Generally (and previously) the advice is to go via the next major version
>>>
Zoran Kolic wrote on 2017/06/20 17:12:
Generally (and previously) the advice is to go via the next major version so
you should go:
9.3 -> 10.x -> 11.x not 9.3 -> 11.x
Exactelly what I want to avoid.
People successfuly upgraded, without branch 10.
In the past I did 8.4 to 10.3, but not by
> Generally (and previously) the advice is to go via the next major version so
> you should go:
>
> 9.3 -> 10.x -> 11.x not 9.3 -> 11.x
Exactelly what I want to avoid.
People successfuly upgraded, without branch 10.
Thanks a lot.
Zoran
Zoran Kolic wrote:
Is it possible, like 9.3 to 11.0 ? Binary.
I have a box, which has no reliable hardware,
and would like to avoid multiple disk spin.
Best regards
Generally (and previously) the advice is to go via the next major
version so you should go:
9.3 -> 10.x -> 11.x not 9.3 -> 11.x
Is it possible, like 9.3 to 11.0 ? Binary.
I have a box, which has no reliable hardware,
and would like to avoid multiple disk spin.
Best regards
Zoran
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
