Subject: Re: head stable?
To: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Marcin Jessa <email@example.com>
Date: 06/14/2006 16:24:51
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:03:18 -0400
Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments.
> I should have said: I'm talking about my notebook, which is running
> current from April. I'm aware of netbsd-3, and run that (or netbsd-2
> still) on a number of production machines. My project at BBN will be
> tracking current, so it's ok if this takes a bit of time but I'd
> prefer to avoid real trouble.
> So my question was really: is -current in the mostly ok shape it
> usually is, or in one of those occasional bad states? From the
> responses I got, it seems yes, it's in reasonable shape.
I fetched new sources today and built distribution and kernels for XEN0
and XENU without any problem.
System upgraded fine as well removing the old sendmail stuff.
I think you should be able to use it now without experiencing any
> From: Daniel Carosone <email@example.com>
> Seems to be to me, and there are many useful fixes. Certainly, no
> worse than -current ever is, and a lot better than it sometimes
> (rarely) can be.
> Thanks, and that's what Garrett said mostly.
> > I've been
> > hesitant to upgrade due to the hearing about the switch to gcc4.
> This begs two questions:
> - upgrade from what as a starting point? an earlier current from
> (say) a few months ago, or from a 3.0-something? if the former,
> i'd say go ahead and swap a whole bunch of known fixed issues in
> the past few months for the risk of new ones that you will always
> get with -current, and faced the last time too.
> From April current, so seems like I should go ahead.
> - what about the switch to gcc4 makes you hesitate? The fact that
> gcc4 might introduce or uncover additional problems (in which
> case, don't worry, because it's not yet the default), or the fact that
> you may want to upgrade again very soon once the default is
> changed, and you hesitate so as to wait and do the work only
> I use a script that does full-auto merging of etc, so the work is only
> dealing with any problems
> (https://acert.ir.bbn.com/projects/etcmanage/). With gcc4 not the
> default, I'm not worried.
> As an aside, my concern with switching to gcc4 relates more to the
> possibility of random pkgsrc things breaking than to the base
> system; accordingly, I have so far only switched machines that don't
> use many pkgs to gcc4 - and have had no problems with those. When I
> have some spare time I'll knock up another xen domU to test building
> all the pkgs I use elsewhere with gcc4, and see how many break.
> That's a good point - my thinking was more diffuse, that upgrading the
> compiler was scary and that I didn't want this box on the profusely
> bleeding edge.
> One person said offlist that a build with HAVE_GCC4 completed and the
> kernel crashed on boot. I'm used to having to cvs up the next day and
> retry the build - my real concern was if a new build would succeed to
> make release but then work very badly.
> Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>