9.1 minimal ram requirements

[Kimmo Paasiala]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Thomas Mueller <mueller23 at insightbb.com> wrote:
> from Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>:
>
>> In an ideal world, the bits that will almost certainly become FreeBSD 9.1
>> would not appear on the masters, or any of the mirrors, until the same
>> instant that the release announcement is set to freebsd-announce at FreeBSD.org.
>
>> In practice this doesn't happen.  If there is some clever way for that to
>> happen, we haven't found it yet.
>
>> It has happened in the past that even as the release bits were propogating,
>> One Last Big Bug was found and those bits had to be pulled and re-done.  It
>> would have looked like you had FreeBSD Release X.Y but you wouldn't have had
>> the final bits that everyone else did.
>
>> I understand your frustration that this process takes days, and in general
>> the frustration with this particular release -- more than you could possibly
>> believe.  However, until we figure out the process that would exist in an
>> ideal world, this is what we have, and so if you need something that will be
>> in 9.1, your options at this moment are: build an install from 9-STABLE; find
>> one of the snapshots (and no, I am not the one to ask, sorry); or wait.
>
>> Sorry, but that's the best I can offer right now.
>
>> mcl
>
> So that's why I downloaded-updated source tree using svn, built and installed,
> and uname -a revealed 9.1-PRERELEASE.  It seemed strange after 9.1-RELEASE
> became available on FTP servers December 5.  Maybe they can do something to
> better document "device ctl" in GENERIC; I kept it because it was there, and
> one is led to think it is needed due to changes in FreeBSD.
>
>
> Tom

Most likely you took the stable/9 aka 9-STABLE sources. They have
internal name "9.1-PRERELEASE" until the 9.1-RELEASE goes out of the
door.