Useful and clean. Just like they are at the moment. Personally, I would rather it be complete with pitfalls that may be encountered during an upgrade, that need manual resolution.
As far as I am aware, deleting some files that require manual execution in the first place isn't much of a catastrophe. Sure, if something is no longer supported it should be mentioned in the upgrade instructions, so the users can prepare for it in advance. This is already done to the best extent possible (ie. "Advanced notice: Big changes coming soon!"). Having used OpenBSD since 4.9, I have been doing upgrades on some non-critical systems and clean-installs on critical ones. If I want to ensure something will work 100%, I'm not going to risk an upgrade. In my experience, upgrades to any operating system is highly unlikely to be like-for-like to a clean installation. On Sun, 9 Nov 2014 13:36:59 -0700 (MST) Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: > >I just updated to OpenBSD 5.6 and I was happy to see that rcp, rsh, > >rshd, rwho, rwhod, etc have been removed (at least according to the > >Changelog). However, the upgrade instructions fail to mention that > >files like /etc/rc.d/rwhod or /usr/bin/rwho should be removed. > > How much of a catastrophy is this? > > Question for the community: Do you want the upgrade instructions to > be 100% useful, or 100% complete? >
