On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 08:45:03AM +0800, lveax wrote..
> > seems there are many machines at freebsd.org network are still using
> > 4-STABLE now.
>
> There is a mix of versions in use, upgrading is done at the discretion
> of the admins team that control
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 08:45:03AM +0800, lveax wrote..
>> seems there are many machines at freebsd.org network are still using
>> 4-STABLE now.
>
> There is a mix of versions in use, upgrading is done at the discretion
> of the admins team that cont
I wrote:
> That list isn't quite current either; at least two of the machines
> listed as running 4.X are really running 6.X due to recent hardware
> swapouts and upgrades. I'll go update the Web page to reflect this.
...except that someone just beat me to it. :-)
Bruce.
signature.asc
Desc
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 08:45:03AM +0800, lveax wrote..
> seems there are many machines at freebsd.org network are still using
> 4-STABLE now.
There is a mix of versions in use, upgrading is done at the discretion
of the admins team that controls the FreeBSD.org server farm. That in
turn is depen
seems there are many machines at freebsd.org network are still using
4-STABLE now.
http://www.freebsd.org/internal/machines.html
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send an
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Freddie Cash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Friday 22 December 2006 08:09 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
: > Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is "unstable". After all,
: > it's na
* Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-28 12:34 +0100]:
> I'm afraid I don't know how to specify any mount options
> for the root file system when mounting it via the kernel's
> BOOTP options, but if you mount it read-only (or just treat
You can set some, but AFAIK not -L. :(
dhcpd.conf:
op
Robert Joosten wrote:
>
> > In that case you can savely mount with the -L option
> > (a.k.a. "-o nolockd"), an everything will just work.
> > No need for rpc.lockd at all.
>
> Hmm, yes. Fiddling in etc/fstab and /etc/rc.d/initdiskless didn't help.
> Where am I expected to fiddle to enable
Hi,
> In that case you can savely mount with the -L option
> (a.k.a. "-o nolockd"), an everything will just work.
> No need for rpc.lockd at all.
Hmm, yes. Fiddling in etc/fstab and /etc/rc.d/initdiskless didn't help.
Where am I expected to fiddle to enable this ?
Browsig through archives I lea
Robert Joosten wrote:
> Someone pointed out to disable rpc.lockd completely but that doesn't help
> either. Unless the pxe-clients have to do something on their end I'm not
> aware of.
>
> Another stated rpc.lockd is broken for years now and we should
> implement a dummy one accepting and
the homicidal
bitching in the kitchen the morning after.
After a year she did admit that she likes the new one..
- Original Message -
From: "Graham North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11
Hi,
> >From my understanding, rpc.lockd needs substantial work from a fairly
> experienced developer, to the point where IIRC we are not in a position
> to hold up any releases because of it. Someone will surely correct me
> if I am wrong.
Afaik all is correct.
Someone pointed out to disable rp
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 10:51:51AM -0800, Graham North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> *
> One of the earlier posts just about covered it. Let's keep security fixes,
> and the core Mail, Webserver and maintenance programs.
>
> Postfix, Clamav, Amavisd-new,Spamassassin,courier,apache1.3,php, my
Mark Linimon wrote:
As a point of curiosity, I would like to hear from some of the people in
this thread who will continue to run 4.11 or 4-STABLE for a while, to find
out what ports they are relying on. A note about whether you consider
security updates to be a critical issue would be interesti
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 07:09:51PM +0100, Robert Joosten wrote:
> I know rpc.lockd is PR filed and even offered to help. It stalled;
>From my understanding, rpc.lockd needs substantial work from a fairly
experienced developer, to the point where IIRC we are not in a position
to hold up any release
Hi Mark,
> to find out what ports they are relying on.
None are critical, although I usally get bash and cvsup from ports but
that's not that important
> A note about whether you consider security updates to be a critical
> issue would be interesting.
At least I want to hear about hem.. Fixes
> > But kernel panic issues are being fixed right up to the last
> > minute in the 6.2 release train (these and em and socket change
> > issues are probably what has delayed the final 6.2). There is a
> > lot of work getting done, but clearly a lot of work to do. I wonder
> > if this is an are
rench <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support
> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
> I've been 20 years
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 06:59:16AM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> As a point of curiosity, I would like to hear from some of the people in
> this thread who will continue to run 4.11 or 4-STABLE for a while, to find
> out what ports they are relying on. A note about whether you consider
> security
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 06:45:04AM +, Robert Watson wrote:
> (2) The ports team will no longer work really hard (tm) to keep ports
> working there. They will keep building packages, etc.
To clarify, we will be building 4.X packages as time and resources permit.
Fixing problems that show up t
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
[Not picking on Michael in particular, several people have made
similar comments]
On Fri, 2006-Dec-22 00:15:13 -0500, Michael R. Wayne wrote:
THAT< is why people who run servers, with jails, quotas, ipfw and
moderate load keep complaining about 5.X and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pete French wrote on 12/22/06 8:43 AM:
>> Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
>
> I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the first
> time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases
>
On Friday 22 December 2006 16:06, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 08:09 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
> > Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is "unstable". After all,
> > it's named 6-STABLE for a reason. I'd
On Friday 22 December 2006 02:15, Michael R. Wayne wrote:
> FreeBSD 4.11 can survive a simple burn-in test. FreeBSD 5.X and
> 6.1 can not. Here's what I wrote earlier.
>
burn-in usually is a hardware test and not a software test
> Take a server. Configure for SMP, add quotas within jails an
On Friday 22 December 2006 08:09 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
> Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is "unstable". After all,
> it's named 6-STABLE for a reason. I'd say from experience that the
^^^
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:09:40 +0100
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
> >> Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
> >
> > I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the
Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM:
>> Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
>
> I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the first
> time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases
> is well known, but suspecti
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22-Dec-2006 14:26
Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support
To: Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 22/12/06, Pete French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because everybody kn
grr, i really hate the way gmail replies to the sender of the message rather
than to [EMAIL PROTECTED] It doesn't have that problem with my local
lug mailinglist...
Jeff
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listin
Could be a reference to the Linux world, where every odd kernel
version number (e.g. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5...) are considered
experimental/development kernels. When a kernel is suggested to be
"stable", it gets a new version number. 2.5.X becomes 2.6.0
eventually, which marks the end of the V2.5 developme
On Friday 22 December 2006 10:13, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 22/12/06, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but I get the impression that this whole EOL issue with
> > 4.x is partly a result of not reminding people when the EOL date for 4.x
> > is every 5 minutes. The result i
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeff Rollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22-Dec-2006 13:18
Subject: Re: Communicating with the public (was Re: Possibility for FreeBSD
4.11 Extended Support)
To: Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The point being that you really have to use Th
In response to "Adrian Chadd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 22/12/06, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I could be wrong, but I get the impression that this whole EOL issue with
> > 4.x is partly a result of not reminding people when the EOL date for 4.x
> > is every 5 minutes. The result
> Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable.
I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the first
time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases
is well known, but suspecting something just because of the odd or
evenness of it's numbering s
On 22/12/06, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that this whole EOL issue with
4.x is partly a result of not reminding people when the EOL date for 4.x
is every 5 minutes. The result is that it's just hitting home for a lot
of people now that it's t
On Friday 22 December 2006 09:43, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Friday, 22. December 2006 03:59, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never
> > >was.
> >
> > Why do people continue to say this?
>
> Because everybody
On Friday, 22. December 2006 03:59, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never
> >was.
>
> Why do people continue to say this?
Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable. Just like .0
and .1 relea
In response to "Adrian Chadd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> (I have the same problem with the Squid project. Lots of people want
> Squid to do everything, noone's willing to hire programmers to fix up
> Squid to do these things and release the work back to the public. Then
> people complain that Squid
You know, if people really do run FreeBSD-4.11 servers which are
mission critical (and, hopefully, making money in the process) then
please consider donating money to the project to get FreeBSD-6 sorted
out.
You could perhaps sponsor a FreeBSD developer for a few months to run
through the bugs yo
On 2006-12-22, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> [Not picking on Michael in particular, several people have made
> similar comments]
> On Fri, 2006-Dec-22 00:15:13 -0500, Michael R. Wayne wrote:
>> >THAT< is why people who run servers, with jails, quotas, ipfw and
>> moderate load keep complaining about 5.X a
[Not picking on Michael in particular, several people have made
similar comments]
On Fri, 2006-Dec-22 00:15:13 -0500, Michael R. Wayne wrote:
>>THAT< is why people who run servers, with jails, quotas, ipfw and
>moderate load keep complaining about 5.X and 6.1 and begging for
>4.11 support to be ex
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:59:34PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never
> >was.
>
> Why do people continue to say this? Many sites have used, are still
> using, and plan to continue to use, 5.x in product
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never
>was.
Why do people continue to say this? Many sites have used, are still
using, and plan to continue to use, 5.x in production. ftp5/cvsup3
ran 5.x until a few months ago, and I have a netnews trans
Charles Sprickman made many good point IMO, but one aluded to in
Chris's follow up concerns me:
> there is also uneeded cost involved in piurchasing hardware capable of
> running 6.x
Performance on old boxes & stability interest me, eg the 486s
in scanners ( http://berklix.com/scanjet/ & http://m
On 21/12/06, Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Heinrich Rebehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Colin Percival wrote:
>>> John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Heinrich Rebehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Colin Percival wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This
would have given ev
In response to "Michael R. Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Private reply. Not interested in trolling or becoming a troll...
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:58:11AM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> >
> > Are the people making this argument unaware that 6.1 and 5.5 have been
> > at release status for quit
John Smith wrote:
> Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
> Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in
> October. This would have given everyone about 3 months to stress
> test everything and migrate all their boxes from 4.11 direct to
> 6.2. Now it is
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:35 AM, Colin Percival wrote:
Now it is near the end of
December, and FreeBSD 6.2 RC2 has yet to be seen anywhere.
Chances are that
FreeBSD 6.2 Release will come out earliest mid-January. This does
not give
much time for people to migrate to the newest FreeBSD release
In response to Heinrich Rebehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Colin Percival wrote:
> > John Smith wrote:
> >> Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
> >> Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This
> >> would have given everyone about 3 months to
Colin Percival wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This
would have given everyone about 3 months to stress test everything and
migrate all their boxes from 4.11 direct to
Community support will continue on the freebsd-eol mailing list, fwiw.
However, note that we have dropped the requirement for ports maintainers
to make their ports work on 4.X, although many continue to do so.
It is simply too much for the ports team to support 3 major branches and
one development
John Smith wrote:
> Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
> Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This
> would have given everyone about 3 months to stress test everything and
> migrate all their boxes from 4.11 direct to 6.2.
You've had
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January. Originally,
FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This would have given
everyone about 3 months to stress test everything and migrate all their boxes
from 4.11 direct to 6.2. Now it is near the end of Decembe
54 matches
Mail list logo
