Yesterday's -STABLE kernel corrupts LAN

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2005-11-26 14:52, "J.D. Bronson" <jbronson at wixb.com> wrote:
>At 02:45 PM 11/26/2005, matt . wrote:
>> Wow I must be missing something here on a very basic, fundamental
>> level.
>>
>> I run FreeBSD-RELEASE on a production box.  I have my reservations
>> but it was the only release that supported my RAID controller, so I
>> had no choice (or buy a $300 raid card that was supported).  Anyway
>> it works fine so far (knock heavily and repeatedly on huge pieces of
>> wood).
>>
>> I've read the FreeBSD notes regarding the differences between STABLE,
>> CURRENT and RELEASE.  So uh, what is supposed to be run on a
>> production box?  In plain sight on the FreeBSD site it says "Latest
>> production release" which is 6.0-RELEASE...are we only supposed to
>> run RELEASE on production systems or are we supposed to run STABLE?
>> Seems to me it's counter-intuitive to call something STABLE and not
>> have it meant for production.  My head hurts.
>
> I couldnt agree more with this comment. My head hurt after
> trying to figure this out as well..
>
> Yea. The information seems to contradict itself.
> The only thing I have been able to 100% figure out is:
>
> #*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_6_0
> -> release branch/security fixes only
> Results in: 6.0-RELEASE
>
> #*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_6
> -> 6.0 + changes will eventually be 6.1
> Results in: 6.0-STABLE
>
> It is perhaps a bit easier in OpenBSD land. -STABLE means only
> bugfixes and important patches. In FreeBSD - this seems not the case?

That's RELENG_6_0 here.  We call these the "security branches".

The -STABLE branch is a more actively maintained branch, out of which
the future releases of 6.1-RELEASE, 6.2-RELEASE, ... will be made.

A lot of this is explained in ``Choosing the FreeBSD Version That Is
Right For You'', at

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/

I hope this helps a bit,

Giorgos