Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Karl Denninger
I know (and have done) binary updates between -RELEASE versions

But 12 has a problem with -RELEASE and IPv6, which was recently fixed
and MFC'd.  So now I have an interesting situation in that I have two
machines in the field running 11.2 that do things for me at one of the
"shared colo" joints, and I would like to roll them forward -- but they
have to roll forward to a reasonably-recent -STABLE.

How do I do this, say, coming from 11.2 and wanting to target 12 post
the IPv6 fix MFC?  (e.g. how do I specify the target, since it wouldn't
be "12-RELEASE"?)  I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that "12-STABLE"
is not the correct means to do so.

Or is it, since at first blush it doesn't blow up if I use that... but
I'm hesitant to say "yeah, go at it."

# freebsd-update -r 12-STABLE upgrade
src component not installed, skipped
Looking up update.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 3 mirrors found.
Fetching metadata signature for 11.2-RELEASE from update2.freebsd.org...
done.
Fetching metadata index... done.
Inspecting system... done.

The following components of FreeBSD seem to be installed:
kernel/generic world/base world/lib32

The following components of FreeBSD do not seem to be installed:
kernel/generic-dbg world/base-dbg world/doc world/lib32-dbg

Does this look reasonable (y/n)?

--
Karl Denninger
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
/The Market Ticker/
/[S/MIME encrypted email preferred]/

smime.p7s (6K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Kurt Jaeger-6
Hi!

> I know (and have done) binary updates between -RELEASE versions
[...]
> How do I do this, say, coming from 11.2 and wanting to target 12 post
> the IPv6 fix MFC?

You can't. Either wait until a 12.0 with the fix included or
12.1 is released, or you fetch the source with the fix included,
and build from source.

--
[hidden email]            +49 171 3101372                    One year to go !
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Karl Denninger
On 2/13/2019 07:49, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I know (and have done) binary updates between -RELEASE versions
> [...]
>> How do I do this, say, coming from 11.2 and wanting to target 12 post
>> the IPv6 fix MFC?
> You can't. Either wait until a 12.0 with the fix included or
> 12.1 is released, or you fetch the source with the fix included,
> and build from source.
Got it -- thanks.  Wait it shall be.
--
Karl Denninger
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
/The Market Ticker/
/[S/MIME encrypted email preferred]/

smime.p7s (6K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Jason Tubnor
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 00:53, Karl Denninger <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > You can't. Either wait until a 12.0 with the fix included or
> > 12.1 is released, or you fetch the source with the fix included,
> > and build from source.
> Got it -- thanks.  Wait it shall be.
>
>
>
I also have hit this IPv6 issue (I thought I was going crazy until I worked
it out) and other iflib issues in 12.0, which have been fixed in -STABLE
that really should be patched in 12.0 or bring forward an early 12.1
release.  For our use case, 12.0 is just too buggy for production at this
rate and we won't touch it, which is a shame because there is a lot of good
work in there that we would like to use but it is trumped by the breakages.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Pete French-3


On 14/02/2019 01:43, Jason Tubnor wrote:
> I also have hit this IPv6 issue (I thought I was going crazy until I worked
> it out) and other iflib issues in 12.0, which have been fixed in -STABLE
> that really should be patched in 12.0 or bring forward an early 12.1
> release. For our use case, 12.0 is just too buggy for production at this
> rate and we won't touch it, which is a shame because there is a lot of good
> work in there that we would like to use but it is trumped by the breakages.

Any reason behind not running STBLE out of interest ? Yes, 12 has been
buggy with regards to networking, but these things get fixed very fast
and I now have all my machines on the lattest STABLE in production, as
of yesterday.

-pete.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Kevin Oberman-4
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:10 AM Pete French <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 14/02/2019 01:43, Jason Tubnor wrote:
> > I also have hit this IPv6 issue (I thought I was going crazy until I
> worked
> > it out) and other iflib issues in 12.0, which have been fixed in -STABLE
> > that really should be patched in 12.0 or bring forward an early 12.1
> > release. For our use case, 12.0 is just too buggy for production at this
> > rate and we won't touch it, which is a shame because there is a lot of
> good
> > work in there that we would like to use but it is trumped by the
> breakages.
>
> Any reason behind not running STBLE out of interest ? Yes, 12 has been
> buggy with regards to networking, but these things get fixed very fast
> and I now have all my machines on the lattest STABLE in production, as
> of yesterday.
>
> -pete.
>

Generally, not many.

Far and away the biggest is the requirement to build from sources. It's not
a big deal for me, but if I still had many systems to deal with, that would
be a pain.

I might also mention that just before the pre-release freeze and after a
release, STABLE and be a bit unstable as developers rush to get things in
before the freeze or to add things that they did not want to MFC with
little test time before a release. In recent years this issue has
significantly improved, though.

I run either HEAD or STABLE on my personal system and RELEASE on my only
server, the latter just so I can do binary updates. My server is on hold at
11.2 due to the IPv6 issue and I am amazed that this BIG oops did not
result in an EN and a patched release. Lack of IPv6 is not, for many
people, a minor issue.

The bottom line is that the only real reasons I see for not running stable
is the lack of binary updates, and issues with systems being slightly out
of sync if all are not updated to the same SVN revision at all times. Those
are very big reasons for many.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: [hidden email]
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Freddie Cash-8
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Kevin Oberman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:10 AM Pete French <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On 14/02/2019 01:43, Jason Tubnor wrote:
> > > I also have hit this IPv6 issue (I thought I was going crazy until I
> > worked
> > > it out) and other iflib issues in 12.0, which have been fixed in
> -STABLE
> > > that really should be patched in 12.0 or bring forward an early 12.1
> > > release. For our use case, 12.0 is just too buggy for production at
> this
> > > rate and we won't touch it, which is a shame because there is a lot of
> > good
> > > work in there that we would like to use but it is trumped by the
> > breakages.
> >
> > Any reason behind not running STBLE out of interest ? Yes, 12 has been
> > buggy with regards to networking, but these things get fixed very fast
> > and I now have all my machines on the lattest STABLE in production, as
> > of yesterday.
> >
> > -pete.
> >
>
> Generally, not many.
>
> Far and away the biggest is the requirement to build from sources. It's not
> a big deal for me, but if I still had many systems to deal with, that would
> be a pain.
>

Just as one can setup a poudriere/synth system for building custom binary
package repositories (so one builds packages on one system for easy
installation on multiple systems using binary packages), one can also setup
a custom freebsd-update server (so one builds the OS on one system, for
easy installation on multiple servers using binary updates).  And that can
be done to track -STABLE or -CURRENT, I believe.

Granted, I have never done it, nor looked too deeply into the documentation
around it, but I do know it's possible. :)  At least in theory.  :D

IOW, the days of needing to compile everything on each individual machine
are behind us.

--
Freddie Cash
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Patrick M. Hausen
In reply to this post by Kevin Oberman-4
Good morning,

> Am 14.02.2019 um 19:11 schrieb Kevin Oberman <[hidden email]>:
> Far and away the biggest is the requirement to build from sources. It's not
> a big deal for me, but if I still had many systems to deal with, that would
> be a pain.
> […]
> The bottom line is that the only real reasons I see for not running stable
> is the lack of binary updates, and issues with systems being slightly out
> of sync if all are not updated to the same SVN revision at all times. Those
> are very big reasons for many.

We build from sources centrally, then zfs send/receive /usr/src and
/usr/obj to all of the machines, then just do the install(kernel|world)
part on all of them.

Kind regards
Patrick
--
punkt.de GmbH Internet - Dienstleistungen - Beratung
Kaiserallee 13a Tel.: 0721 9109-0 Fax: -100
76133 Karlsruhe [hidden email] http://punkt.de
AG Mannheim 108285 Gf: Juergen Egeling

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Gregory Byshenk
In reply to this post by Freddie Cash-8
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:22:06AM -0800, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Kevin Oberman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Far and away the biggest is the requirement to build from sources. It's not
> > a big deal for me, but if I still had many systems to deal with, that would
> > be a pain.

> Just as one can setup a poudriere/synth system for building custom binary
> package repositories (so one builds packages on one system for easy
> installation on multiple systems using binary packages), one can also setup
> a custom freebsd-update server (so one builds the OS on one system, for
> easy installation on multiple servers using binary updates).  And that can
> be done to track -STABLE or -CURRENT, I believe.
>
> Granted, I have never done it, nor looked too deeply into the documentation
> around it, but I do know it's possible. :)  At least in theory.  :D
>
> IOW, the days of needing to compile everything on each individual machine
> are behind us.

They have been behind us for quite a long time. Even more than
ten years ago already one could use a build machine for builds,
and then just install on a collection of different servers --
thus using the same tested version everywhere. I'm doing that
even now for a tiny number of "special" machines where I want
to run STABLE instead of just using freebsd-update.

--
gregory byshenk  -  [hidden email]  -  Leiden, NL
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

Pete French-3
In reply to this post by Patrick M. Hausen


On 15/02/2019 08:06, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> We build from sources centrally, then zfs send/receive /usr/src and
> /usr/obj to all of the machines, then just do the install(kernel|world)
> part on all of them.

I do this occasionally, but in the main I sumply NFS mount /usr/src and
/usr/obj and do the upgrade over NFS. Only time I have slight problems
with this is major version upgrades sometimes. When that happens i zfs
send or rsync to move src and obj.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"