On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 06:29:30PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Nottebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Thursday 22 April 2004 16:16, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> : > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Ceri Davies wrote:
> : > > > Are there any, umm, releas
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Michael Nottebrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Thursday 22 April 2004 16:16, Dave Horsfall wrote:
: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Ceri Davies wrote:
: > > > Are there any, umm, release notes for 4.10-BETA, so I can see what I'm
: > > > in for?
: > >
: > > T
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dave Horsfall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead...
It appears that re changed the way they are tagging releases again.
The last time we had 4.x-BETA was 4.2. A review of the cvs log for
the n
Thanks for your suggestions.
Switching the CPUs has made a lot of difference. Now both CPUs show up to
the OS and are usable. If one CPU works is both sockets, and the other
only works in one socket, I think it is safe to say that I have a bad CPU
unit, and the motherboard is likely O.K. I hop
On Thursday 22 April 2004 11:58, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> I decided to take the plunge and perform my very first upgrade, from 4.7
> to (I thought) 4.9, by CVSuping RELENG_4 and "make buildworld" etc.
>
> Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead...
>
> Is this release conside
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 09:18:06AM -0700, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
> I just cvsup'd a machine to 4.10-BETA from 4.9-STABLE (from a few months
> ago) and now the boot process hangs when it gets to my IDE hard drive
> (ad0:...). It works fine on 4.9 and Windows (dual boot machine). I tried
> both gene
