Re: Update to the 13.0-RELEASE schedule

We don't even start before .1 is out. Am 31.03.21 um 19:24 schrieb Rainer Duffner: > >> Am 31.03.2021 um 17:58 schrieb Glen Barber : >> >> A small set of updates that we consider blocking the 13.0 release have >> been brought to our attention. As such, the 13.0-R

Re: Update to the 13.0-RELEASE schedule

> Am 31.03.2021 um 17:58 schrieb Glen Barber : > > A small set of updates that we consider blocking the 13.0 release have > been brought to our attention. As such, the 13.0-RELEASE schedule has > been updated to include a fifth release candidate (RC5). > > The updated

Re: Update to the 13.0-RELEASE schedule

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:58:51PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > A small set of updates that we consider blocking the 13.0 release have > been brought to our attention. As such, the 13.0-RELEASE schedule has > been updated to include a fifth release candidate (RC5). > > The u

Update to the 13.0-RELEASE schedule

A small set of updates that we consider blocking the 13.0 release have been brought to our attention. As such, the 13.0-RELEASE schedule has been updated to include a fifth release candidate (RC5). The updated schedule is available on the FreeBSD Project website: https://www.freebsd.org

13.0-RELEASE schedule update

At least one issue has been brought to our attention that affects new installations, which as we currently have no precedent for re-rolling ISOs and/or VM images post-release, warrant adding RC4 to the 13.0 schedule. Please be advised that we are still only accepting critical changes only, with

Re: 12.1-RELEASE schedule update

On 2019-11-02 19:31, Glen Barber wrote: On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 12:14:05PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:20 AM Glen Barber wrote: On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 02:12:50PM +, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:52:50PM +, Glen Barber wrote: On Fri, Nov

Re: 12.1-RELEASE schedule update

On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 12:14:05PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:20 AM Glen Barber wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 02:12:50PM +, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:52:50PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:18PM

Re: 12.1-RELEASE schedule update

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:20 AM Glen Barber wrote: > On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 02:12:50PM +, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:52:50PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:18PM +, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > > > > At the moment we have

Re: 12.1-RELEASE schedule update

On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 02:12:50PM +, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:52:50PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:18PM +, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > > > At the moment we have graphics/drm-fbsd12.0-kmod port for 12.0. > > > I hope in most cases

Re: 12.1-RELEASE schedule update

Hi Sergey, On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 01:44:18PM +, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > Hi Glen, > > hope you're doing well. > You as well. > At the moment we have graphics/drm-fbsd12.0-kmod port for 12.0. > I hope in most cases it's enough for RELENG_12 branch, however > just to avoid a potential

12.1-RELEASE schedule update

At present, there seems to be no need for an RC3 build for the 12.1 cycle, so it has been removed from the schedule. The final release build date has remained unchanged, currently planned for November 1. Should something completely bizarre occur between now and then, we may have an RC3 build as

Update to 12.0-RELEASE schedule

The 12.0-RELEASE schedule has been updated, adding BETA4 to the schedule in order to provide additional testing for changes that fix a boot time issue, in addition to allowing more time for packages for arm and arm64 to finish building, before branching releng/12.0 and starting the RC phase

Re: 11.1-BETA2 builds and 11.1-RELEASE schedule reminder

Hi there, 2017-06-19 22:28 GMT+02:00 Xin LI : > Sounds like https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219882 ? > Could you please check if that's the case? Glen also pointed me to that PR on IRC. It turns out that that does indeed fix it. Thanks for all the quick

Re: 11.1-BETA2 builds and 11.1-RELEASE schedule reminder

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 08:29:08PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:24:59PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > > Hi Glen, > > > > [ +stable ] > > > > 2017-06-15 18:54 GMT+02:00 Glen Barber : > > > As a reminder, the 11.1-BETA2 builds are scheduled to begin 16

Re: 11.1-BETA2 builds and 11.1-RELEASE schedule reminder

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:24:59PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hi Glen, > > [ +stable ] > > 2017-06-15 18:54 GMT+02:00 Glen Barber : > > As a reminder, the 11.1-BETA2 builds are scheduled to begin 16 June 2017 > > at 00:00 UTC (roughly 7 hours from now). > > I just gave the

Re: 11.1-BETA2 builds and 11.1-RELEASE schedule reminder

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hi Glen, > > [ +stable ] > > - i386: When started in VirtualBox (5.0.30), it starts to print some > kernel panic stack trace during boot, but ends up rebooting > immediately, meaning I cannot capture the trace for you. Sounds

Re: 11.1-BETA2 builds and 11.1-RELEASE schedule reminder

Hi Glen, [ +stable ] 2017-06-15 18:54 GMT+02:00 Glen Barber : > As a reminder, the 11.1-BETA2 builds are scheduled to begin 16 June 2017 > at 00:00 UTC (roughly 7 hours from now). I just gave the 11.1-BETA2 build a try: - amd64: Boots perfectly fine, at least in VirtualBox. -

11.0-RELEASE schedule update

and starting 11.0-RC1 builds, BETA4 will be added to the 11.0 release schedule, since the level of possible intrusiveness would be extremely difficult to fix with an Errata Notice after 11.0-RELEASE. The 11.0-RELEASE schedule has been updated on the website to account for the BETA4 addition: https

FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE schedule update

is needed for that architecture. At re@ it has been decided, that we will not enter the RC phase with these showstoppers in place. Thus, the original 10.3-RELEASE schedule has been put back by one week in order to allow for resolving these two problems, with the previously optional 10.3-BETA3 builds now

Heads-up: Change to 10.2-RELEASE schedule

At this time, re@ feels it is not necessary to have 10.2-BETA3 as part of the release cycle, so the next 10.2 builds (planned to start in just under 9 hours) will be 10.2-RC1. The 10.2-RELEASE schedule has been updated on the FreeBSD.org website to reflect this change, and is also included

Release schedule

, but, the release engineering page https://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html tells me that 10.2 is planned only for November 2015 (and 11.0 for July 2016). So my question is, would it be possible to have a somewhat less drawn-out release schedule? Maybe at fixed times twice during the year, so

Upcoming Release Schedule

Just a quick note to say the target schedule for the release of FreeBSD 7.4 and 8.2 has been worked out. We will be shooting for a dual release (same target dates for both releases). The major highlights are: Freeze: Nov. 28, 2010 BETA1: Dec. 3, 2010 RC1:Dec. 17,

update release schedule information?

Hi, the release schedule information available in http://www.freebsd.org/releases/7.1R/schedule.html is outdated. You probably already know about this ... and I also know 7.1-RELEASE is delayed, but the schedule page does not provide any useful information on what's going to happen next. BETA2

Upcoming release schedule

As some of you may know the FreeBSD Project has been attempting to shift over from Feature based releases to Time based releases as far as trying to schedule them goes. Lets just say that's still a work in progress (as in doing that with FreeBSD 7.0 didn't work out so well). This is the

Re: Release Schedule 7.1

On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 20:07 -0700, Jason C. Wells wrote: What are the hoped for release dates for 7.1? (plus or minus a month) I'm debating on running 7.0 vs 7.1 and timing is a consideration. Regards, Jason Scheduled releases are listed on the release engineering page.

Release Schedule 7.1

What are the hoped for release dates for 7.1? (plus or minus a month) I'm debating on running 7.0 vs 7.1 and timing is a consideration. Regards, Jason ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Jo Rhett wrote: Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. Most of the open source OSes do it just fine. Debian had probably the easiest to use system, and they've risen, owned the world and fallen all while FreeBSD has been debating this issue.

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

Kai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Hello, Another ™.02, Today I'm installing Freebsd 6 from a CD, and I'm having to jump through loops to get it up-to-date. Take for example FreeBSD-SA-06:03.cpio. First I need to install the sources for the complete OS, then run a patch on it, and all that for

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

Hi, Kai wrote: Another ™.02, Today I'm installing Freebsd 6 from a CD, and I'm having to jump through loops to get it up-to-date. Take for example FreeBSD-SA-06:03.cpio. First I need to install the sources for the complete OS, then run a patch on it, and all that for the installation of 1

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On 22. des. 2005, at 22.17, Jo Rhett wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Wed, 2006-Jan-11 23:22:53 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: I am deliberately trolling: not to cause grief, but to see if there are any bites on the topic. So far it's just people insulting my intelligence and cutpasting web pages to me. Going out of your way to antagonize FreeBSD developers is not the

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Hej there, Jo Rhett wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:27:18PM +0100, Marian Hettwer wrote: I'm actually wondering how yahoo for instance handles this situation. To my knowledge, they have several thousand of FreeBSD based servers. Either they are all the same in regards to configuration and

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:07, Jo Rhett wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:20:11PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: I imagine there are a few committers interested, but I'd say you need to ask the right way first.. As in...? I don't know any personally, but then again I only know about 3

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:15, Jo Rhett wrote: Before we plan the invasion of Iraq, how about an agreement on what we're trying to accomplish? Like I said, this topic has always been killed because non-newbies can run make buildworld. So if it's going to get shot down quickly then why bother?

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows, Mac OS X or Solaris, to name just three commercial OS's. On Fri, 2006-Jan-06 02:34:40 -0800, Jo

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

the cart before the horse. When Scott posted the release schedule, I was not offering to build this for him (although I am interested enough to try/help/etc) I was suggesting that perhaps this issue deserves a priority focus, given the escalation of releases. You're saying If you want to go

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:16:36PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: You're trying to target to large of an audience... You need to get _A_ committer interested in your work, and get HIM to guide you and commit your work... DING! Now we are FINALLY understanding what my goal for this topic

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

the team to take this on, where do you start? I tried to start by suggesting to Scott that a faster release schedule means that maybe this should be considered a priority. To see if even a consensus on the *idea* could be reached. Mostly I just get insults. SOP for freebsd. -- Jo Rhett senior

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:27:18PM +0100, Marian Hettwer wrote: I'm actually wondering how yahoo for instance handles this situation. To my knowledge, they have several thousand of FreeBSD based servers. Either they are all the same in regards to configuration and version, or they have some

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: 1. modified kernels are foobar ..yet are practically mandatory on production systems Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero people

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:11:58PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:02, Jo Rhett wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: How do you expect these two to be handled in a binary upgrade? I can't see how it's possible.. Look around.

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:26:12PM -0500, Ender wrote: I think what integrated with the core OS means from a user standpoint is: from a fresh minimum install of freebsd I can type freebsd-update-whatever and it will update my system. Just freebsd-update ;-) That works fairly well with the

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:40:56PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: No. I want a binary update mechanism. Obviously if we have local configuration options we'll have to compile our own binaries. But doing the work of tracking system updates currently requires us to build our own patch tracking

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:41:47AM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: I believe core has a policy of never supporting vaporware... There is always the chicken and egg problem with arguments like this... I'll code this if you agree to support it and maintain it/I will agree to support it once you

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

I just know that core has either struck it down or been Silent. On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 05:32:26PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: The latter is an entirely different case from the former, and you've been claiming core has done the former. This, and the above, tell me that you're not interested

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 21:53, Jo Rhett wrote: you mean? Are you claiming someone from (or claiming to be from core) said Don't do this, we won't allow it? If so, can you supply proof? I used to write a lot of patches to freebsd. I used to submit a lot of bug reports. I've found over the years

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Hi there, Jo Rhett wrote: On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:20:13AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: So, uhh, how would your magical binary upgrade system handle custom kernels? Why would it be any different? You still haven't explained how this would work.. Versioning of the core package would

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Fri, 2006-Jan-06 02:34:40 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows, Mac OS X or Solaris, to name just three commercial

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Jo Rhett wrote this message on Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 03:03 -0800: On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:41:47AM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: I believe core has a policy of never supporting vaporware... There is always the chicken and egg problem with arguments like this... I'll code this if you

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:13:20PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:10:19PM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team has repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts Please provide hard evidence for this

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:38:20PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: I agree with Brooks. I don't recall ever seeing a message from -core (or anyone else talking on behalf of the Project) stating that code to make binary updates possible would not be integrated. For that matter, I don't recall ever

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:08:13PM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: Having done full OS upgrades a number of times, I can't remember the last time it took more than 5 or 10 minutes (during most of which the When the servers are in 17 countries around the world, with no CD-ROM access. You keep

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:09:04PM -0800 I heard the voice of Jo Rhett, and lo! it spake thus: No, you're missing the point. More core OS upgrades means less incremental patches (which are easier to apply than a full update). On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:08:13PM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:36:11AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: On each 'client' PC.. NFS mount /usr/src and /usr/obj installkernel reboot installworld Works fine on home computers behind firewalls. Useless on public servers that don't run RPC. Useless on flash-based servers where

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

Patrick M. Hausen, and lo! it spake thus: Any suggestions for an alternative to NFS if your 'client' servers are located all over the world and you want to installworld across the Internet? I was planning to use NFS/TCP secured by IPSec transport mode, but anything less complicated would

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:47, Jo Rhett wrote: But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS. 1. modified kernels are foobar ..yet are practically mandatory on production systems 2. modified

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 13:17:30 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS. 1. modified kernels are foobar ..yet are practically mandatory on production systems 2. modified

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

Hello! 1. modified kernels are foobar ..yet are practically mandatory on production systems Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows, Mac OS X or

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:02, Jo Rhett wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: How do you expect these two to be handled in a binary upgrade? I can't see how it's possible.. Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. Most of the open source OSes

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Thu, 2006-Jan-05 01:37:27 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: No. I want a binary update mechanism. Obviously if we have local configuration options we'll have to compile our own binaries. But doing the work of tracking system updates currently requires us to build our own patch tracking mechanism, and

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Jo Rhett wrote this message on Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:24 -0800: You are putting words in the mouth of core@ - Sorry. As said before, the topic is always struck down and nobody from core has ever stood up to say we'll support this. I don't know whose on core this week, nor will I at any

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Jo Rhett wrote this message on Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:24 -0800: Sorry. As said before, the topic is always struck down and nobody from core has ever stood up to say we'll support this. I don't know whose on core this week, nor will I at any given time. This information is publicly

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

[cross post to -current removed] On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:54, Jo Rhett wrote: On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:36:11AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote: On each 'client' PC.. NFS mount /usr/src and /usr/obj installkernel reboot installworld Works fine on home computers behind firewalls. Useless

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

ml (And, as well, that you do not even understand the role the core plays ml in the project. Hint: it is not primarily technical in nature.) For those curious to know how the project works, the following online resources may help: A project model for the FreeBSD Project

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:51:15AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: Any suggestions for an alternative to NFS if your 'client' servers are located all over the world and you want to installworld across the Internet? I was planning to use NFS/TCP secured by IPSec transport mode, but anything

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:02, Brian Candler wrote: Linux has an extremely neat solution for this (sshfs) but I don't know of anything comparable in the BSD world. sshfs uses 'Fuse', a plug-in architecture which allows filesystems to run in userland. I believe it makes an sftp connection to the

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

Hi, Folks! On your central PC.. buildworld once. builkernel once for each of the different kernels you are using. On each 'client' PC.. NFS mount /usr/src and /usr/obj installkernel reboot installworld Any suggestions for an alternative to NFS if your 'client' servers are located all

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:51:15AM +0100 I heard the voice of Patrick M. Hausen, and lo! it spake thus: Any suggestions for an alternative to NFS if your 'client' servers are located all over the world and you want to installworld across the Internet? I was planning to use NFS/TCP secured by

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:08:13PM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: No, you're missing the point. More core OS upgrades means less incremental patches (which are easier to apply than a full update). Right. I don't understand how B follows A here. These patches come from where? Security

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Brian Candler wrote: I think the real concern here is: for how long after RELEASE_X_Y are binary patches for it made available? I build FreeBSD Update patches for all the branches supported by the FreeBSD Security Team. To answer a couple of other questions: FreeBSD Update is something which

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

I have consistently ignored all emails in this thread because the use of the word demand in the Subject. Whenever people use words like demand or somebody should in FreeBSD contexts, it indicates cluelessness to me. Cluelessness about how the project works and cluenessness about how things

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

phk Bring to system administration what source code phk version control brought to programming. www.infrastructures.org www.isconf.org -- FreeBSD Volunteer, http://people.freebsd.org/~jkoshy ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:10:19 +0530 Joseph Koshy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: www.infrastructures.org www.isconf.org and perhaps also http://www.cfengine.org/ and probably others. IMHO, FreeBSD is a good os, with good options on configuration and management. It is not a systems management tool /

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:10:19PM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team has repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts Please provide hard evidence for this assertion. Merely repeating it will not be sufficiently convincing. I

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

As a FreeBSD-n00b with some 'friends' that know FreeBSD better/well I can only say Please add this kind of information to the Handbook Any addition to the handbook on tracking down problems and smarter ways to fix things would be greatly appreciated. I found myself recompiling my kernel to test

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: There will be three FreeBSD 6 releases in 2006. On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 02:00:21PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote: While this is nice, may I suggest that it is time to put aside/delay one release cycle and come up with a binary update

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:55:33AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: Doesn't creating a binary updates system that's going to be practical to use require implementation of that old and exceedingly bikesheddable subject: packaging up the base system? EXACTLY. That's why we need core team

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:55:33AM +, Matthew Seaman wrote: Doesn't creating a binary updates system that's going to be practical to use require implementation of that old and exceedingly bikesheddable subject: packaging up the base system? On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:13:09PM -0500,

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 02:00:21PM -0800 I heard the voice of Joe Rhett, and lo! it spake thus: Increasing the number of deployed systems out of date [...] On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 08:37:25PM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: This doesn't make any sense. If you install a 6.0 system, in 6

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:08:07PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: So, when will you fix it? Or hire someone to fix it? FreeBSD after all is mostly a volunteer operation. I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team has repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts,

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:35:34PM +0100, K?vesd?n G?bor wrote: I agree. And after all, tracking a security branch isn't too difficult, but the most people think that they have to do a complete make buildworld after a security advisory, but this isn't true. For example there was that

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not distributed from the FreeBSD.org domain, then a)

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:10:19PM -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:08:07PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: So, when will you fix it? Or hire someone to fix it? FreeBSD after all is mostly a volunteer operation. I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Jo Rhett wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:55:03PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote: YMMV. I burned a 6.0 release from the ISO image, and did a binary upgrade on an IBM ThinkPad (T.34? maybe), which worked perfectly. All of the 5.x binaries, including X11, KDE, printing, Mozilla, etc worked just

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:30:41PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: This statement makes no sense. The core team wouldn't have much to do with this other than possibly being involved in making any service official. Also, approval is never given to include a non-existent feature. Easy, binary

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:45:09PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote: FreeBSD releases new .ISO images several times a year, but you've got the tools to make .ISO images of patch releases yourself, if you want to. I don't think that the FreeBSD project can shorten the release cycle below a month

Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:47, Jo Rhett wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 )

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:42, Jo Rhett wrote: Using a build server as a testbed and to generate new packages or even a new kernel + world will reduce the amount of work required, but FreeBSD does require some level of administration and maintenance. We already have that. But again, I'm not

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:09:04PM -0800 I heard the voice of Jo Rhett, and lo! it spake thus: No, you're missing the point. More core OS upgrades means less incremental patches (which are easier to apply than a full update). Right. I don't understand how B follows A here. These patches

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 13:10:19 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote: I and many others have offered to work on this. The core team has repeatedly stated that they won't integrate the efforts, which makes os-upgrade capability minimal and easily broken. (see current efforts) On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 14:05:32 -0800, Jo

Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

Kevin Oberman writes: [discussion of USB/Cx level interactions clipped out...] If you unload the drivers, you should be to lower levels. Take a look at sysctl hw.acpi.cpu for detail and to see how much time is spent in each sleep state. I assume that you can unload the drivers, but

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:13:09PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: Doesn't creating a binary updates system that's going to be practical to use require implementation of that old and exceedingly bikesheddable subject: packaging up the base system? No, after all the *existing* binary update

Re: Release Schedule for 2006

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:06:12PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: Well, no, the sound system is not broken, perhaps a driver just In my case it is broken, I hear cracks and dropouts with my Soundblaster Live card and the emu10k driver. It gets worse with higher loads and uptime. I experienced the

Re: Release Schedule for 2006

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:44:06PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: regression in this area in RELENG_6, it would be worth reporting to this list, hopefully with enough detail that a developer could help you troubleshoot the problem. This problem already existed in 5.x, please have a look at

Cx states missing after upgrade -- Was: Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006

Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:46:49 +0100 From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:14:01 +0100 From: martinko [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600 From: Craig Boston [EMAIL

Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Chuck Swiger wrote: Upgrading the ports from there was somewhat annoying, as this guy's machine had ~400 or so, but deleting them all, and then using pkg_add -r works just fine if you want to grab the latest current binaries. From there you can portupgrade as usual. Now, if you want to talk

Re: Release Schedule for 2006

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:44:48PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: It looks like in the course of writing your long email you forgot to describe any of the problems you are having. I don't know his exact problems either, but I could name you a few examples that currently reduce the fun of using

Re: Release Schedule for 2006

Uwe, On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Uwe Laverenz wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:44:48PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: It looks like in the course of writing your long email you forgot to describe any of the problems you are having. I don't know his exact problems either, but I could name you a few

Re: Release Schedule for 2006

On Sunday 18 December 2005 15:02, Uwe Laverenz wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:44:48PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: It looks like in the course of writing your long email you forgot to describe any of the problems you are having. I don't know his exact problems either, but I could name you

Re: Release Schedule for 2006

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:02:58PM +0100, Uwe Laverenz wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:44:48PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: It looks like in the course of writing your long email you forgot to describe any of the problems you are having. I don't know his exact problems either, but I

  1   2   >