OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by GMF » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:29:48



Hello all,
What would be the easiest method of upgrading my OPEN bsd 2.9 box to 3.0 or
3.1 ?? Would it be VIA ftp??

TIA,
Greg

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by Han » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:42:24


Aldus typte GMF:

Quote:

> What would be the easiest method of upgrading my OPEN bsd 2.9  box  to
> 3.0 or 3.1 ?

Backup an reinstall.

Groetjes, Han.
--
FreeBSD: The Power   (__)   Business conventions are important because
To Serve.         \\\'',)   they demonstrate how many people a company
RELENG_4            \/  \ ^ can operate without. -- Anonymous
on a i686.          .\._/_)

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by GMF » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:10:27


Uuggh, that is what I thought.

thanks,
Greg

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
478374uiowerthq9858t43

Quote:> Aldus typte GMF:

> > What would be the easiest method of upgrading my OPEN bsd 2.9  box  to
> > 3.0 or 3.1 ?

> Backup an reinstall.

> Groetjes, Han.
> --
> FreeBSD: The Power   (__)   Business conventions are important because
> To Serve.         \\\'',)   they demonstrate how many people a company
> RELENG_4            \/  \ ^ can operate without. -- Anonymous
> on a i686.          .\._/_)

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by Reclusive Schmo » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:54:12


Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?



> Aldus typte GMF:

>> What would be the easiest method of upgrading my OPEN bsd 2.9  box  to
>> 3.0 or 3.1 ?

> Backup an reinstall.

> Groetjes, Han.

--
"Don't pretend you want to talk to me, I know you hate me."
 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by Ted » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:47:59



> Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a clean
install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0 makes that
a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious changes.

Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't mind
keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that upgrading
requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade minifaq.
It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly faster.
A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work correctly.

I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is because
that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.  The
upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might be
best off with the simplest solution.

--
If you ever would give them a helping hand,
You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by m0on » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:44:43



> Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?



> > Aldus typte GMF:

> >> What would be the easiest method of upgrading my OPEN bsd 2.9
box  to
> >> 3.0 or 3.1 ?

> > Backup an reinstall.

You could try reading this:

<http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade-minifaq.html>.

Going from 3.0 to -current didn't work out too well for me. Everything
compiled. After rebooting, I get an error as soon as I enter a login
name. Something like "could not get class for XXX." I'm sticking to
patch brands from now on. ;)

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by GMF » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:41:59


Thanks Ted and to all. I will read the minifaq and refer to it in the
future. A clean 3.1 it shall be.

Greg



> > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a clean
> install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0 makes that
> a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious changes.

> Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't mind
> keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that upgrading
> requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade minifaq.
> It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly faster.
> A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work correctly.

> I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is because
> that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.  The
> upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might be
> best off with the simplest solution.

> --
> If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by GMF » Sat, 15 Jun 2002 00:37:29


Ted et al,
Could I just patch my 2.9?? I am not too concerned with the new changes that
3.1 offers?

TIA,
Greg

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
478374uiowerthq9858t43


> > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a clean
> install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0 makes that
> a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious changes.

> Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't mind
> keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that upgrading
> requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade minifaq.
> It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly faster.
> A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work correctly.

> I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is because
> that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.  The
> upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might be
> best off with the simplest solution.

> --
> If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by Ted » Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:44:27



> Could I just patch my 2.9?? I am not too concerned with the new changes that
> 3.1 offers?

Maybe.  2.9 has been "retired."  There will be no more patches.
Unfortunately, the developers do not have time to maintain all past
versions.

> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> 478374uiowerthq9858t43



> > > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> > To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a clean
> > install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0 makes that
> > a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious changes.

> > Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't mind
> > keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that upgrading
> > requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade minifaq.
> > It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly faster.
> > A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work correctly.

> > I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is because
> > that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.  The
> > upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might be
> > best off with the simplest solution.

> > --
> > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

--
If you ever would give them a helping hand,
You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.
 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by GMF » Sat, 15 Jun 2002 02:56:10


Thanks, I will do a backup and the a clean FTP 3.1
So 3.1 is stable?

Greg



> > Could I just patch my 2.9?? I am not too concerned with the new changes
that
> > 3.1 offers?

> Maybe.  2.9 has been "retired."  There will be no more patches.
> Unfortunately, the developers do not have time to maintain all past
> versions.

> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> > 478374uiowerthq9858t43



> > > > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> > > To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a clean
> > > install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0 makes
that
> > > a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious
changes.

> > > Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't mind
> > > keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that upgrading
> > > requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade
minifaq.
> > > It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly
faster.
> > > A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work correctly.

> > > I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is
because
> > > that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.  The
> > > upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might be
> > > best off with the simplest solution.

> > > --
> > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> --
> If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by Ted » Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:20:27



> Thanks, I will do a backup and the a clean FTP 3.1
> So 3.1 is stable?

I'd say it's among the best releases.

> Greg




> > > Could I just patch my 2.9?? I am not too concerned with the new changes
> that
> > > 3.1 offers?

> > Maybe.  2.9 has been "retired."  There will be no more patches.
> > Unfortunately, the developers do not have time to maintain all past
> > versions.

> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> > > 478374uiowerthq9858t43



> > > > > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> > > > To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a clean
> > > > install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0 makes
> that
> > > > a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious
> changes.

> > > > Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't mind
> > > > keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that upgrading
> > > > requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade
> minifaq.
> > > > It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly
> faster.
> > > > A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work correctly.

> > > > I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is
> because
> > > > that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.  The
> > > > upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might be
> > > > best off with the simplest solution.

> > > > --
> > > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> > --
> > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

--
If you ever would give them a helping hand,
You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.
 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by Greg Flanaga » Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:43:56


thanks ted.

--
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.


> > Thanks, I will do a backup and the a clean FTP 3.1
> > So 3.1 is stable?

> I'd say it's among the best releases.

> > Greg




> > > > Could I just patch my 2.9?? I am not too concerned with the new
changes
> > that
> > > > 3.1 offers?

> > > Maybe.  2.9 has been "retired."  There will be no more patches.
> > > Unfortunately, the developers do not have time to maintain all past
> > > versions.

> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > > > 478374uiowerthq9858t43



> > > > > > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> > > > > To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a
clean
> > > > > install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0
makes
> > that
> > > > > a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious
> > changes.

> > > > > Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't
mind
> > > > > keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that
upgrading
> > > > > requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade
> > minifaq.
> > > > > It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly
> > faster.
> > > > > A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work
correctly.

> > > > > I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is
> > because
> > > > > that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.
The
> > > > > upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might
be
> > > > > best off with the simplest solution.

> > > > > --
> > > > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> > > --
> > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> --
> If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by GMF » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:07:22


Ted et all,
I went to this ftp site and  copied all the files from
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.1/i386/ for p166 intel machine. I in
turn, burn these files to cd. I was under the assumption that I could but
from this CD if my computer was set to boot from CDROM but alas it does not
work. What did I do wrong??? I know I can make floppies from using
rawrite....

Greg



> > Thanks, I will do a backup and the a clean FTP 3.1
> > So 3.1 is stable?

> I'd say it's among the best releases.

> > Greg




> > > > Could I just patch my 2.9?? I am not too concerned with the new
changes
> > that
> > > > 3.1 offers?

> > > Maybe.  2.9 has been "retired."  There will be no more patches.
> > > Unfortunately, the developers do not have time to maintain all past
> > > versions.

> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > > > 478374uiowerthq9858t43



> > > > > > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> > > > > To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a
clean
> > > > > install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0
makes
> > that
> > > > > a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious
> > changes.

> > > > > Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't
mind
> > > > > keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that
upgrading
> > > > > requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade
> > minifaq.
> > > > > It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly
> > faster.
> > > > > A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work
correctly.

> > > > > I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is
> > because
> > > > > that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.
The
> > > > > upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might
be
> > > > > best off with the simplest solution.

> > > > > --
> > > > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> > > --
> > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> --
> If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by Ted » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:52:23



> I went to this ftp site and  copied all the files from
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.1/i386/ for p166 intel machine. I in
> turn, burn these files to cd. I was under the assumption that I could but
> from this CD if my computer was set to boot from CDROM but alas it does not
> work. What did I do wrong??? I know I can make floppies from using
> rawrite....

There's instructions on www.shockley.net somewhere. Bootable CDs are a
special case requiring a bit more work than usual.

> Greg




> > > Thanks, I will do a backup and the a clean FTP 3.1
> > > So 3.1 is stable?

> > I'd say it's among the best releases.

> > > Greg




> > > > > Could I just patch my 2.9?? I am not too concerned with the new
> changes
> > > that
> > > > > 3.1 offers?

> > > > Maybe.  2.9 has been "retired."  There will be no more patches.
> > > > Unfortunately, the developers do not have time to maintain all past
> > > > versions.

> > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > > rights.
> > > > > 478374uiowerthq9858t43



> > > > > > > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> > > > > > To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a
> clean
> > > > > > install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0
> makes
> > > that
> > > > > > a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious
> > > changes.

> > > > > > Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't
> mind
> > > > > > keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that
> upgrading
> > > > > > requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the upgrade
> > > minifaq.
> > > > > > It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is possibly
> > > faster.
> > > > > > A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work
> correctly.

> > > > > > I believe the reason a clean install is most often recommended, is
> > > because
> > > > > > that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.
> The
> > > > > > upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you might
> be
> > > > > > best off with the simplest solution.

> > > > > > --
> > > > > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > > > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > > > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> > > > --
> > > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> > --
> > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

--
If you ever would give them a helping hand,
You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.
 
 
 

OPEN bsd 2.9 upgrade to 3.1

Post by GMF » Sun, 16 Jun 2002 04:21:17


Thanks Ted, I should be ok now.....I hope...  :)

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
478374uiowerthq9858t43


> > I went to this ftp site and  copied all the files from
> > ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.1/i386/ for p166 intel machine. I in
> > turn, burn these files to cd. I was under the assumption that I could
but
> > from this CD if my computer was set to boot from CDROM but alas it does
not
> > work. What did I do wrong??? I know I can make floppies from using
> > rawrite....

> There's instructions on www.shockley.net somewhere. Bootable CDs are a
> special case requiring a bit more work than usual.

> > Greg




> > > > Thanks, I will do a backup and the a clean FTP 3.1
> > > > So 3.1 is stable?

> > > I'd say it's among the best releases.

> > > > Greg




> > > > > > Could I just patch my 2.9?? I am not too concerned with the new
> > changes
> > > > that
> > > > > > 3.1 offers?

> > > > > Maybe.  2.9 has been "retired."  There will be no more patches.
> > > > > Unfortunately, the developers do not have time to maintain all
past
> > > > > versions.

> > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no
> > > > rights.
> > > > > > 478374uiowerthq9858t43



- Show quoted text -


> > > > > > > > Does the same apply going from 3.0 to 3.1?

> > > > > > > To a lesser extent.  The bigger the version jump, the better a
> > clean
> > > > > > > install will be.  Also, the ipf -> pf conversion in 2.9 to 3.0
> > makes
> > > > that
> > > > > > > a slightly larger than normal leap.  Sendmail also had serious
> > > > changes.

> > > > > > > Personally, I tend to upgrade, because it's faster and I don't
> > mind
> > > > > > > keeping the old stuff around too much.  Keep in mind that
> > upgrading
> > > > > > > requires a little more manual labor; pay attention to the
upgrade
> > > > minifaq.
> > > > > > > It's very important.  So on the one hand, an upgrade is
possibly
> > > > faster.
> > > > > > > A clean install, though, is more or less guarenteed to work
> > correctly.

> > > > > > > I believe the reason a clean install is most often
recommended, is
> > > > because
> > > > > > > that is the simplest answer to give to people who have to ask.
> > The
> > > > > > > upgrade can be more complicated, and if you have to ask, you
might
> > be
> > > > > > > best off with the simplest solution.

> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > > > > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > > > > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> > > > > --
> > > > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> > > --
> > > If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> > > You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> > > Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

> --
> If you ever would give them a helping hand,
> You can be sure they'll chop off the arm.
> Never, ever, never trust a Klingon; you will always regret it.

 
 
 

1. Cant find errno.h while upgrading 3.1-stable (to 3.1-stable)

I cvs'ed a new stable source tree. I made a new kernel.

While making the new binutils I get an error. The upgrade minifaq
says:
-----------------
 # cd /usr/src/gnu/egcs/libiberty
  # make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper cleandir
  # make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper obj
  # make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper depend
  # make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper
  # make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper install
-----------------

But it quits during "make -f Makefile.bsd-wrapper depend"
It quits with this error:
/usr/src/gnu/egcs/libiberty/rename.c:6: errno.h: No such file or
directory
*** Error code 1

I checked for this file:
myhostname# ls -l /usr/include/errno.h
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root  bin  11 Jun 28 09:27 /usr/include/errno.h -> sys/errno.h
myhostname# ls -l /usr/include/sys
myhostname#

The /usr/include/sys directory is empty.

What should be in this directory, and how do I get it there? Or
am I doing something else wrong?

Bert

2. Postgres on SCO

3. upgrade 2.9 -> 3.0 problem

4. Linux sucks and so do I

5. upgrading from 2.8 to 2.9

6. how do delete file with special name ??

7. upgrade from 2.9 - asked again!

8. What adresses will not be routed

9. How to upgrade PROM to 2.9 or greater

10. upgrading from 2.8 -> 2.9

11. upgrade to 2.9 and softupdates

12. Upgrading from 2.7 to 2.9

13. bsd-airtools and OBSD 3.1