>
> IMHO, The FreeBSD Project should have some mechanism for
> recognizing the fact that in some cases (especially embedded
> systems and slower hardware) a really good, solid older
> implementation is the right choice and is worth maintaining. (And
> that's no April Fool's Day joke.) To do this do
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
I am all for it.
According to this thread, it appears the 4.x branch is still used for
whatever reasons, may they be perceived good or bad depends on one's own
consideration and feeling. If the FreeBSD Project is going to relinquish
RELENG_4 suppo
At 09:39 AM 10/11/2006, Dan Lukes wrote:
Even if no new ports will be compilable on 4.x, even if
the old ports will not be updated with exception of update caused
by security bug, I vote for delaying EOL of 4.11
I would second that vote. Yes, some of the new enhancements in 6.x
are n
Chris Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From my personal experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine,
> all on the same hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install
> than I ever did with my 4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to see
> if 6.0 will run on it.
The transition from 4.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Laco wrote:
Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0... From my personal
experience of (4) 4.x machines and (1) 5.x machine, all on the same
hardware, I've had more problems with my 5.x install than I ever did with my
4.x install. I'm afraid to even look to s
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
On 2006.10.12 10:59:18 +0300, Patrick Okui wrote:
One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which
is why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
binary upgrade as the only way I can get to REL
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Your 4.x system is not doing to die when we EOL 4.x. We're only
saying that it is not going to see any additional work on it in
the official FreeBSD repository.
Actually, we're not even saying that. We're just saying that it will no
longer be o
On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:42 PM, Dan Lukes wrote:
5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count it as
competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release in 6.x tree.
6.0 has stability problem. The 6.1 is sufficiently stable on
average use, but it still has problems in edge situat
Quoting Dan Lukes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:40:48 +0200):
I'm using 6-STABLE (and 5-STABLE previously) on some unimportant
computers and I'm reposting observered problems (mostly with offer of
patch).
The trick is to make some noise and get the attention of a commit
Just a lurker, and FreeBSD users since late 3.0...
> Problem is performance and trust in stability. It's
> money and hardware independent problem.
>
> 5.x has significant performance hit, so we can't count
> it as competitive replacement for 4.x. 6.1 is second release
> in 6.x tre
One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which is
why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
binary upgrade as the only way I can get to RELENG_6. Is this still the case
(because the logistics on arranging that are ... interesting) or is
Doug Barton wrote:
The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I speaked about
performance in some situation and believe in it's stability.
I think saying that it's a worse replacement is a bit too broad.
Hi list,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 03:15:25PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> In order to facilitate this effort, I'd like to suggest that a new
> mailing list be created, freebsd-releng4. That would allow the
> interested folks to get together, pool resources, and decide what is
> possible.
I am al
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Dan Lukes wrote:
But, maybe for my poor knowledge of english, you misunderstand the
point of my think.
Your English is quite good, actually. :)
The main problem is - 6.x is still not competitive replacement for
4.x. I'm NOT speaking about old unsupported hardware - I s
On 2006.10.12 10:59:18 +0300, Patrick Okui wrote:
> One of my servers is colocated in a place on a different continent - which is
> why I haven't been able to upgrade it beyond RELENG_4. Google turns up a
> binary upgrade as the only way I can get to RELENG_6. Is this still the case
> (because t
Garance A Drosihn napsal/wrote, On 10/12/06 04:09:
Your 4.x system is not doing to die when we EOL 4.x. We're only
This is an open-source project. If it really is as easy to support
4.x with security fixes as you think it is, then "you" (all of you
Yes, I'm ready to self-support the 4.x f
> - Original Message -
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:20:18 +0200 (CEST)
>
>
> > I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in
At 12:42 AM +0200 10/12/06, Dan Lukes wrote:
As I'm not commiter, I'm allowed to submit PR and speak.
I'm trying both. This letter is "speak" part.
Understood.
But this has been announced for awhile. If the people who actually
depend on 4.x can find the resources to support it, I am
Well, I suspect that most people with the resources to do what you ask
have already moved on precisely because the EoL has been published.
i.e., faced with that limited commitment, we had no choice but to
(grudgingly and at the last minute) move on.
I think the most likely path of success is, as y
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 03:36:10PM -0700, Paul Allen wrote:
> Well, I suspect that most people with the resources to do what you ask
> have already moved on precisely because the EoL has been published.
> i.e., faced with that limited commitment, we had no choice but to
> (grudgingly and at the las
Garance A Drosihn napsal/wrote, On 10/11/06 21:33:
Even if no new ports will be compilable on 4.x, even if the
old ports will not be updated with exception of update caused by
security bug, I vote for delaying EOL of 4.11
That's easy to say.
I understand that it's much more work than jus
Jason Stone wrote:
I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited
supply,
You just hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of FreeBSD
developers (including but not limited to the committer community) have
moved on. If you (meaning the people that want continued suppor
Lots of knashing of the teeth on this one but lets face it, it had to
die sometime. For all the 4.x users still out there (and plenty of
them have deep pockets) no reason you can't just hire third party
support (possibly even a current developer); hell get together and
maybe pool your resources.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
...
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
more ?
Yes, I'm also voting for it. This support may be limited to
remote-exploitable vulnerabilities only, but I'm sure the
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0700, FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
Users of FreeBSD 4.11 systems are also reminded that that FreeBSD 4.11
will reach its End of Life at the end of January 2007 and that they
should be making plans to upgrade or replace such sys
On Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 18:08:02 +0200, Dirk Meyer wrote:
> Jeremie Le Hen schrieb:,
>
> > Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
> > is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
>
> agreed.
>
> > Is it envisageable to extend t
At 8:42 AM -0700 10/11/06, Jason Stone wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
[...]
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELEN
On 10/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited
supply,
> but if you solicit the opinion of the community, I'd bet that more
people
> would rather see 4.x support continue than 5.x support.
>
> I know that it would be
> I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited supply,
> but if you solicit the opinion of the community, I'd bet that more people
> would rather see 4.x support continue than 5.x support.
>
> I know that it would be a violation of the stated policy, but I think that
> sup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
[...]
Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
more ?
Yes, I'm also vot
Mark Linimon wrote:
From a ports standpoint: absolutely not.
We are currently trying to support 4 major CVS branches. Although we still
have some dedicated committers who are trying to keep the Ports Collection
running on 4.X, they are falling further and further behind, especially as
the rate
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:21:06PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0700, FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
> > Users of FreeBSD 4.11 systems are also reminded that that FreeBSD 4.11
> > will reach its End of Life at the end of January 2007 and that the
Hello!
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it
is still used in many places because of its stability and performance.
For instance, according to Julian Elischer's posts, it seems he is still
working on it.
Is it envis
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:21:06PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once
> more ?
>From a ports standpoint: absolutely not.
We are currently trying to support 4 major CVS branches. Although we still
have some dedicated committers wh
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:30:22AM -0700, FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
> Users of FreeBSD 4.11 systems are also reminded that that FreeBSD 4.11
> will reach its End of Life at the end of January 2007 and that they
> should be making plans to upgrade or replace such systems.
Though I admit
Hi,
for information, I tested the latest patch from bz@ :
http://sources.zabbadoz.net/freebsd/patchset/20061005-01-carp-v6-scope-ipfw.diff
and carp with IPv6 is working fine again !
More information in the PR (kern/98622)
thanks a lot
--
Philippe Pegon
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
If memory serves me
If memory serves me right, Philippe Pegon wrote:
> In June 2006, I opened a PR (kern/98622) about a regression on CARP
> with IPv6 addresses: CARP is not usable with IPv6. Since I tracked
> down the culprit commit (see appropriate info in the PR), I can
> affirm that this regression appeared befor
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Philippe Pegon wrote:
> In June 2006, I opened a PR (kern/98622) about a regression on CARP
> with IPv6 addresses: CARP is not usable with IPv6. Since I tracked
> down the culprit commit (see appropriate info in the PR), I can
> affirm that this regression
Hi,
In June 2006, I opened a PR (kern/98622) about a regression on CARP
with IPv6 addresses: CARP is not usable with IPv6. Since I tracked
down the culprit commit (see appropriate info in the PR), I can
affirm that this regression appeared before the 6.1-RELEASE.
Wouldn't it be better to fix
FreeBSD Security Officer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Everyone,
Hi,
On October 31st, FreeBSD 5.3 and FreeBSD 5.4 will have reached their
End of Life and will no longer be supported by the FreeBSD Security
Team. Users of either of those FreeBSD releases are stro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Everyone,
On October 31st, FreeBSD 5.3 and FreeBSD 5.4 will have reached their
End of Life and will no longer be supported by the FreeBSD Security
Team. Users of either of those FreeBSD releases are strongly encouraged
to upgrade to FreeBSD 5.5
41 matches
Mail list logo
