5.x concerns

Michael Nottebrock michaelnottebrock at gmx.net
Sun Feb 6 07:42:09 PST 2005

On Sunday, 6. February 2005 16:01, Chris wrote:

> 4 - compatiblity, I remember using 5.2.1 and pretty much all software
> worked well in that and then they did the bind defaulting to base and
> libs version jump, why wasnt this done in 5.0

I personally told lots and lots of people to NOT use 5.2.1-Release and wait 
for 5.x to become a stable branch instead, but it still got installed far 
more often than it really should have. 5.2.1 was still a Technology Preview 
release - it was a snapshot of FreeBSD 5-CURRENT, just as 5.0-RELEASE, 
5.1-RELEASE and 5.2-RELEASE were before.

In retrospect, there probably should have been more warning signs on the 
website and the documentation to point out that fact. Also, there probably 
should have been more feature and driver backports to FreeBSD 4, so less 
people would have been tempted by the better hardware support and general 
friendlyness of FreeBSD 5-CURRENT. Too late to change now, but perhaps 
something that should be remembered for the next time FreeBSD goes through a 
similar transition period.

   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi at freebsd.org
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     | http://www.freebsd.org
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050206/05df5eee/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list