Why was 2.1.5R pulled back and re-released?

Why was 2.1.5R pulled back and re-released?

Post by Charles F. Randa » Fri, 19 Jul 1996 04:00:00



A few days ago, there was a file named README.2.1.5 in /pub/FreeBSD on
ftp.freebsd.org that stated something like (from memory), "The
permissions on the 2.1.5 directory have been changed to 700 on
purpose. A few bugs were found just after the release and we've
decided to fix them quickly and re-release."

It would appear that it has now been re-released. What were the
reasons for doing this?

-Randy

--

UNIX Systems Programmer            Voice:  (515) 965-7057
Perl Hacker - Powered by FreeBSD!  FAX:    (515) 965-7305

 
 
 

Why was 2.1.5R pulled back and re-released?

Post by Steven G. Karg » Fri, 19 Jul 1996 04:00:00



> A few days ago, there was a file named README.2.1.5 in /pub/FreeBSD on
> ftp.freebsd.org that stated something like (from memory), "The
> permissions on the 2.1.5 directory have been changed to 700 on
> purpose. A few bugs were found just after the release and we've
> decided to fix them quickly and re-release."

> It would appear that it has now been re-released. What were the
> reasons for doing this?

A few bugs were found that effected the ability to install on
certain popular hardware.

> -Randy

> --

> UNIX Systems Programmer            Voice:  (515) 965-7057
> Perl Hacker - Powered by FreeBSD!  FAX:    (515) 965-7305

--
Steve


http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/sgk.html

 
 
 

Why was 2.1.5R pulled back and re-released?

Post by Mike Andre » Sun, 21 Jul 1996 04:00:00




>> A few days ago, there was a file named README.2.1.5 in /pub/FreeBSD on
>> ftp.freebsd.org that stated something like (from memory), "The
>> permissions on the 2.1.5 directory have been changed to 700 on
>> purpose. A few bugs were found just after the release and we've
>> decided to fix them quickly and re-release."

>> It would appear that it has now been re-released. What were the
>> reasons for doing this?

>A few bugs were found that effected the ability to install on
>certain popular hardware.

Like the 3C509?  :-)

I caught the KNOWNBUG.TXT file before I upgraded, and was able to work around
the problem by just copying it all onto the second hard disk and installing
locally, then applied the 509 patch and rebuilt the kernel.  Mindly annoying,
but not a horrible crisis fortunately...

My question:

Is this the only difference in the "updated" 2.1.5, or were there any other
bugs fixed?  I ask because have 5 machines to upgrade total, and I've already
done two of them and don't want to have to do them again.  One of those two
is the ONLY one with a 3C509 in it -- the other four have either 3C503's
or NE2000 clones...  and if all that's fixed in the re-released 2.1.5 is
the 509 driver, it'll save me re-upgrading hassles.

If more was fixed than that, what was it, and are there patches?

Thanks!

--

-- Programmer/Analyst, systems/mail/web/netnews guy, Wittenberg University
-- http://www.termfrost.org/~mandrews/                            "why..."

 
 
 

Why was 2.1.5R pulled back and re-released?

Post by Jordan K. Hubba » Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:00:00


   Is this the only difference in the "updated" 2.1.5, or were there any other
   bugs fixed?  I ask because have 5 machines to upgrade total, and I've already

We also added the Intel EtherExpress Pro to GENERIC, from where it was
missing, and brought in the 3c590/3c595 driver which had also been
accidently omitted.

   If more was fixed than that, what was it, and are there patches?

See the CTM delta which immediately follows the 2.1.5 base delta
(on ftp.freebsd.org) - that contains just those patches.

                                        Jordan
--
- Jordan Hubbard
  President, FreeBSD Project

 
 
 

Why was 2.1.5R pulled back and re-released?

Post by J Wuns » Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:00:00



> Is this the only difference in the "updated" 2.1.5, or were there any other
> bugs fixed?

. the 3c509 bug has been fixed (sigh, this was mea culpa, i should not
  trust the Usenet users that much :),
. the vx driver has been included, against David's better judgement as
  he noted in the commit message, but to make the system agree with
  the already printed documentation and release notes,
. the CDROM installation was found to be broken and has been fixed
  (serious, but certainly not of your concern),
. and it was found too late that the ports and packages were now too
  fat for the first CDROM, so the installation program had to be
  taught to pick it off the second CD.

So for you, i think it's only the 3c509 driver that is important.

--
cheers, J"org


Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)

 
 
 

1. Upgrade 2.1.5R to 2.1.6R

I've got three machines running 2.1.5R and I have a tape with 2.1.6R on
it.  Is it worth upgrading these systems to 2.1.6R?  What's the best /
easiest way to do so?  Should I run the 2.1.6R installation and let it
do an upgrade?  Should I do a fresh install on one machine and then copy
the source tree to the other two machines?

Jim

2. Sony OSL 6000 Optical Storage Library and Linux

3. 2.1.5R --> 2.1.6R upgrade available?

4. glibc make failure - stdio_lim.st?

5. Quake2 3.21 for Solaris re-released (developper/advanced user -only-release)

6. Netscape Installation Problems

7. Upgrading 2.1R -> 2.1.5R

8. Installing 3com network card

9. Problems with audio & midi on 2.1.5R

10. lnc driver in 2.1.5R

11. FreeBSD 2.1.5R wont run on AST Bravo

12. Network Audio System (NAS) on 2.1.5R

13. Can't install 2.1.5R on an IBM ThinkPad 365X