On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 12:06:04AM +0200, Soner Tari wrote: > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 19:15 +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > Downgrades are NOT supported. > > > > Some backrground info: the disklabel format changed from 4.1 to 4.2. > > A 4.2 kernel makes sure to translate the format, and the new tools handle > > things fine too. We tested many upgrade scenarios, and they all work > > fine. So far reports like yours all have boiled down to version conflicts. > > > > I'm pretyy confident you mixed versions somewhere in your process, and > > with all your experimenting, you could very well have made the on-disk > > label faulty. > > Hmmm, I always thought that the phrase "Downgrades are NOT supported." > referred to binaries, libraries, ports packages, and such. It never > occurred to me that it refers to "disk labels" too. This must be > especially true going from 4.1 to 4.2. > > Please note that I have never downgraded OpenBSD binaries and such, > ever... But this was my test/development system, and I was testing the > upgrade feature of my project. So I was reinstalling 4.1 over 4.2 (not > downgrading), without touching the partitions. So, this is effectively > an unintentional downgrade of the disk label. > > To continue my upgrading tests, I *have to* reinstall 4.1 over 4.2 again > and again. In order not to have this label downgrading issue, do you > think it is enough to 'z' on disklabel editor and recreate all > partitions during 4.1 install (over 4.2 installed HD)? (I have dd'd the > HD with /dev/zero after your comments above, so I am not sure if just > 'z' on disklabel editor is enough.) Is there a faster way for my upgrade > test cycles? > > Thank you very much.
dd'ing the disk is the most reliable method. .... Ken
