"Thomas Mueller" <mueller6724%bellsouth.net@localhost> writes: > From "Greg Troxel" <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>: > >> If you want to track what-will-become-5.1 and then stay at 5,1, then >> yes. I generally just track netbsd-5. The release engineering people >> do such a great job that for normal systems (even a cvs server at a >> company) are perfectly ok in practice tracking netbsd-5. That said, I >> expect that there will be a flurry of pullups to netbsd-5 just after >> 5.1; some changes have been marked "do this after 5.1". > >> > I guess the best way to update the base system is to download the iso, >> > burn to CD, boot from that CD, and choose Update, as I've been doing? > >> That's one way to do it, and a reasonable way. The other way is to >> either grab a release image or to build one yourself, and to overlay the >> binaries. This can be tricky, but the scripts I use to do it are all in >> the sysutils/etcmanage package. I routinely update systems using that >> with almost no trouble. > > Normally I would think the source code should be in sync with the > binary installation, so then I would need to update the base > installation if I update the source, referring to expected pullups to > netbsd-5 just after 5.1? Yes, I meant get all of src and xsrc via cvs, and rebuild everything. > You say "overlay the binaries". Does that mean just copy over? It means put a new kernel and userland binaries in place. This is slightly tricky, which is why I put it a script and commented it. > There > might be some files whose name will have changed, and some that are > being dropped. Read the scripts I pointed you to :-) Not everything is handled, but it works well enough for most uses. > You say tracking netbsd-5 is perfectly ok, does that mean it's safer > than tracking netbsd-current? One feature that might attract me to > netbsd-current is improved support of Linux ext2fs. I suppose I could > download and install netbsd-current to a USB stick, but don't want to > keep updating on USB stick: too slow on my system. But I'd see if it > can read my Linux ext2fs partitions. Yes, it's much safer than current.
Description: PGP signature