Guys, I've heard about some absurd RAM requirements for 9.1, has anybody tested it? e.g. http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=36314 -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/9-1-minimal-ram-requirements-tp5771583.html Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 12/23/2012 12:27 AM, Jakub Lach wrote:> Guys, I've heard about some absurd RAM requirements > for 9.1, has anybody tested it? > > e.g. > > http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=36314jup, I can comfirm this with nanobsd (cross) compiled for my soekris net4501 which has 64 MB mem: from dmesg: real memory = 67108864 (64 MB) while the same config compiled against a 9.0 tree still works... cheers Marten> > > > -- > View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/9-1-minimal-ram-requirements-tp5771583.html > Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org" >
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=174671 -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/9-1-minimal-ram-requirements-tp5771583p5771862.html Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
So, it's fine and recommended to remove ctl device
from kernel? I installed from image on the site two
weeks ago and consider it release.
Zoran
I always considered FreeBSD to be the most unabiguous, straightforward and sometimes even raw, but still extremely powerful and innovative, operating system out there. Seeing 9.1-RELEASE instead 9.1-PRERELASE or 9.1-RC4 is also a bad suprise for me... I have fallback into RC3 and I think the RELEASE files should be removed as well because there was no RELEASE yet. There is no rush to get RELEASE, I am sure it is better to get RC4, RC5, RC6 and then a RELEASE "when its ready". When people get buggy and unstable RELEASE and install it on a production systems they will neither come back to the system nor even support it in future :-( -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
> Seeing 9.1-RELEASE instead 9.1-PRERELASE > or 9.1-RC4 is also a bad suprise for me...I assume it does not look like release is the lack of packages. Simply, I installed and compiled from ports. Cannot say if it stands on the site as a decoration, but I have it on desktop and laptop and found it a serious piece of work. The point is that I had to install, since I had had two new computers waiting blank. If no-one has any idea on the subject, I will just remove the line in kernel. Hopes are that old "make reinstallkernel KERNCONF..." still works. Best regards Zoran
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 06:02:33PM +0100, Zoran Kolic wrote:> > Seeing 9.1-RELEASE instead 9.1-PRERELASE > > or 9.1-RC4 is also a bad suprise for me... > > I assume it does not look like release is the lack > of packages.What you are seeing is behind-the-scenes preparation. The release is official when, and only when, a security-signed email is sent to freebsd-announce at FreeBSD.org from the Release Engineering team. mcl
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.> mclSo 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