On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:29:30PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > > > > A binary upgrade to 5.0 isn't going to be much better. If you just > > do it, it's going to leave you with most of the problems described in > > UPDATING. You're still going to have to remember to delete things from > > your includes directories if you want C++ to work, your pam.conf will be > > obsolete, the names of some devices will be different, etc. > > I thought 5.0-RELEASE wouldn't suck. Now you are saying that it > will, and the fact that it will is justification for making it > suck even more by breaking existing installed 4.7-RELEASE machines > that get upgraded to 5.0-RELEASE.
I'm saying that trying to do an inplace upgrade will be fairly complicated. You will have to pay attention to what's going on and you will have to deal with things that have changed. If you don't read the release notes (which would certaintly mention this change if it were made), be prepared to get bitten. That's true of every other OS I've ever upgraded. As usual, your best bet is to do a fresh install. If you can't do that, you need to think long and hard before doing an upgrade. Most of the big features of 5.0 aren't going to do you a lot of good on a system that already works and is in production. For example, UFS2 is only useful if you can newfs your disks. In any case, this isn't the sort of thing you should leap into. If you do and things go badly, that's just too damn bad. -- Brooks
msg44863/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
