atheros 9285 wifi
freebsd at edvax.de
Thu Jul 14 02:26:02 UTC 2011
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:02:02 +1000, freebsd-questions at herveybayaustralia.com.au wrote:
> So are you saying I can't just grab the ath module?
Depends. Maybe a newer version of the module requires a more
recent version of the kernel, because a new interface or
function was added...
> I'd rather stick to release, but I guess if I'm having to rebuild the
> kernel each update...
You _can_ try to just compile (1st step) and load (2nd step)
the module with the RELEASE kernel, but it's not guaranteed
to work. Both steps may require updates in sources or in the
running kernel as illustrated above.
> What are the cons to using stable?
> I thought
> stable was still being worked on and shouldn't be used for production?
The FreeBSD release branches in short:
HEAD or CURRENT is the branch with active development. It may
even happen that CURRENT of _now_ does not compile, but CURRENT
of _2 hours later_ will. This is a branch where also experimental
changes can be applied, and usually comes with lots of debugging.
STABLE is suitable for desktop and production, but you should
know what you're doing. This branch contains development that
has been agreed about to be in the next release.
RELEASE-pX is the security branch of a RELEASE. It contains the
patchlevels that correspond to the security updates only. This
is often recommended for production.
RELEASE is the "finalized" release of a specific "fixed" version.
Refer to the FreeBSD Handbook for a more detailed description.
> I'm providing services to very green users so I'd like to stay close
> to reliable as possible- hence my addiction with the release versions.
As I said, STABLE is interesting if you need features that you
won't get by following RELEASE-pX.
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions