-stable question

[jwhal]

I've skimmed through the FAQ's, but still have a dumb question-
Will downloading src, sys, xenocara, ports and patches manually, applying the patches, then building result in the same thing as updating via CVSUP? The idea being upgrading to -stable. I may just be overcomplicating this (been a *very* long week).

jwhal

[jggimi]

It can be confusing. No worries.

-Release+errata is not quite the same as -stable. The -stable flavor includes errata patches, as well as some additional patches for stability that are not deemed critical enough to be published on the errata web page.

If you are using -release+errata, you need not use any CVS client, including CVSup; the -release source is available from the CD set or your nearest mirror.

If you are using -stable, then a CVS client is necessary.

Common CVS tags:

-release: OPENBSD_X_Y_BASE
-stable: OPENBSD_X_Y
-current: none, or HEAD

CVS clients are used only to obtain the appropriate version of the source. You would then still need to build the kernel, userland (or individual components, if using errata), and X (or components, if using errata) as needed.

[BSDfan666]

To extend upon jggimi's excellent explanation, an example of how -STABLE differs from -RELEASE+patches, the recent 25 year old BSD *dir() bug only made it into -STABLE.

I confess, I don't follow -STABLE, I'm a patch fiend.. but I might consider it in the future..

I'm not brave enough to run -CURRENT ..

[jggimi]

It seems to me that a decision to backport any -current patch to -stable is fairly easy:

Does this fix something in -release? Or does this fix something in -current or add new functionality there?

The decision of whether or not to add a -stable fix to the errata page is probably much more of a judgment call. As I'm not a developer, I don't have insight into how that decision is made, but I am guessing each proposed errata is discussed by those responsible for the area concerned, and a consensus is formed.

I see -stable patches as they appear in the source-changes@ mailing list, but I have never counted them and compared the number to errata patches.

----

@bsdfan:

Some folks who run -current never build a kernel or userland. They just upgrade from snapshot to snapshot. The mergemaster package makes upgrades manageable -- and now with sysmerge(8), mergemaster may be dropped. Also, the availability of "snapshot packages" may mean that unless there's a synchronization issue, these lazy people don't even have to build a port.

[lvlamb]

Call me the lazy one
I upgrde every couple of months from snapshots.
Just check the dates of both snapshot packages and binary packages to have them both available for a given date. Also watching misc@ for hints.
Or, when http://openbsd.org/plus.html has an issue I am concerned with.
Anyway, the working secure OS is -current.
Release or -stable are badly chosen words.
If I am correct, to run postgresql 8.3, I need -current anyway.

Fwiw, I multiboot my production server. I only switch the snapshot to a newer one after a week-end's test on normal load.
Downtime is just limited to the speed of your hard drive.

[jwhal]

Thanks for the respones. I don't plan on running -current.
Is either of the two methods more recommended than the other?
Are there any issues with compatibility of ports/packages with either method? I'm guessing no, unless you're running -current?

[jggimi]

I believe -stable is easier than -release+errata. You can have your CVS client update things via /etc/daily.local or /etc/weekly.local, and then you run your kernel or userland build script as appropriate. See a patch added to source? Run the appropriate build. Whereas with errata patches, you have to manually apply each.

[jggimi]

And as for port/package sync, you should never have that trouble with -release/-stable, as libraries are never updated.

[BSDfan666]

Originally Posted by jwhal

Thanks for the respones. I don't plan on running -current.
Is either of the two methods more recommended than the other?
Are there any issues with compatibility of ports/packages with either method? I'm guessing no, unless you're running -current?

Switching to stable will mostly require that you recompile the kernel+user land, the -STABLE ports tree was discontinued, so the -RELEASE packages are the ones you'll need.

If you use -STABLE, it'll require that you check for updates every few weeks...

I'm not going to recommend one over the other, -STABLE might be manageable, (far more then -CURRENT), but -RELEASE+patches only requires that you peek at the errata page every now and then.

Use your own judgement I guess..

[jwhal]

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

the -STABLE ports tree was discontinued, so the -RELEASE packages are the ones you'll need.

Good point. I forgot about that. I guess at this point I won't bother with the patching. My machine isn't a mission critical box. Was simply furthering my knowledge.

Thanks for all the good replies!

jwhal