Hey Patrick, > Why is is hard? If I pull the complete sources from cvs, so that every > file used in the Makefiles is present and up to date, the build process > would be just as trivial I assume. In what case would this _not_ be > true?
Read some of: http://openbsd.unixtech.be/faq/current.html And then some of: http://openbsd.unixtech.be/faq/upgrade-old.html "Flag day" springs to mind. > Yes, I updated a 3.9 yesterday, and it worked fine. Updating from > source would be just as easy (but quicker). I'm assuming you mean "Upgrading from source would be just as easy (but quicker)". Let's say you have 6 production i386 machines. You want to upgrade them from 3.9 to 4.0 by source. You read all you can, try it out on a spare box, record every step you take and dutifully reproduce your steps on each production machine. Let's say you have 6 production i386 machines. You want to upgrade them from 3.9 to 4.0. You read all you can, upgrade or clean install on a spare box, build a release (because you track -stable), transfer the install sets to each production box (or use a shared nfs mount) and dutifully follow the Upgrade Guide on each production machine. Which scenario is quicker? [1] > So I understand that it's > more a lack of resources and that you'd be just as fine with binary > upgrades if they were officially supported. But they aren't. And - it's nowhere near necessary. `man release` is your friend. HTH... Nico [1] Yes, the latter. And, you save on your energy bill. And, Al Gore will think you're sweet. And, I will too. ;-)
