Upgrading 5.3 > 6.0 buildworld failure now in libmagic

[Kenneth W Cochran]

>From: Vizion <vizion at vizion.occoxmail.com>
>To: freebsd-stable at freebsd.org, bsdlists at rfnj.org
>Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:41:30 -0800
>Cc: Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org>
>Subject: Re: Upgrading 5.3 > 6.0 buildworld failure now in libmagic
>
>On Tuesday 06 December 2005 16:50,  the author Allen contributed to the
>dialogue on-
> Re: Upgrading 5.3 > 6.0 buildworld failure now in libmagic:
>
>>On Tue, December 6, 2005 19:44, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, secmgr wrote:
>>>> Not to belabour this, but the 6.0 release notes do specificly say 5.3
>>>> RELEASE and newer.
>>>
>>> 5.4-STABLE is newer. :)
>>>
>>>> "Source upgrades to FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE are only supported from FreeBSD
>>>> 5.3-RELEASE or later. Users of older systems wanting to upgrade 6.0-RELEASE
>>>> will need to update to FreeBSD 5.3 or newer first, then to FreeBSD
>>>> 6.0-RELEASE."
>>>
>>> How does this change to UPDATING in RELENG_6 look to you:
>>>
>>> Index: UPDATING
>>> ===================================================================
>>> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/UPDATING,v
>>> retrieving revision 1.416.2.7
>>> diff -u -r1.416.2.7 UPDATING
>>> --- UPDATING    1 Nov 2005 23:44:40 -0000       1.416.2.7
>>> +++ UPDATING    7 Dec 2005 00:42:04 -0000
>>> @@ -229,7 +229,13 @@
>>>          page for more details.
>>>
>>>          Due to several updates to the build infrastructure, source
>>> -       upgrades from versions prior to 5.3 no longer supported.
>>> +       upgrades from versions prior to 5.4-STABLE are not likely
>>> +       to succeed.
>>
>>Sorry to butt in but..
>>
>>Doesn't the definition of -STABLE change, for all intents and purposes, by
>>the minute?
>>
>>What next, "versions prior to 5.4-STABLE as of YYYYMMDD ...."?

I believe I've seen exactly this type of notation in UPDATING
over the years, in both 4.x & 5.x.

>>> +
>>> +       When upgrading from one major version to another, it is
>>> +       generally best to upgrade to the latest code in the branch
>>> +       currently installed first, then do another upgrade to the
>>> +       new branch.
>>
>>This is getting closer to the truth.
>>
>>Why don't you just say "update to the most recent RELENG_5 before
>>attempting."  Future proof, no room for confusion.
>
[...snip...]
>
>There is however a perennial problem that freebsd documentation has always
>been seen as behind and seperate from the development process rather than an

Maybe (hmm, even probably :) but I've found documentation,
announcements, errata, etc. (*manpages*) for FreeBSD to
be *much* better, more relevant & up to date than, umm,
"other" opensource systems.  Compared to FreeBSD, other
systems' documentation/manpages seem haphazard & in some
cases even nonexistent.

>integral part of that process. [...snip...]
>
>Certainly better documentation for the upgrade path between 5.3 and 6.0 would
>have saved me a h*** of a lot of time.. but there it is.. live does not hand
>out many A++s

I would guess that it says 5.3 instead of 5.4 due to oversight,
e.g. it was written/documented/recommended before 5.4 was out.
Maybe that's (part of) the basis for the Handbook's recommendation of
reading the -stable list if you indeed want to track past -RELEASE.  :)

>Thank you top everyone who helped. I have now successfully upgarded to 5.4 and
>am about to begin the last leg of this journey towards 6.0.
>
>my two pennorth
>
>david
>--

Mine too I guess :)

-kc