> Yes, this is believed to have been resolved in 5.3. Good to hear. > So, you're running 5.2 on those systems, which was documented as a > development release and not recommended for use on production systems No, *I* am not running FreeBSD 5 anywhere on productive systems. Unfortunaly, the ISP recommended it to this particular owner of two systems where I am doing some voluntary work in my spare time. One of the servers ran 5.1 with an uptime of >200 days. There were no indications that 5.2 contained such vast regressions in comparison to 5.1. Even today, the 5.2.1 errata page does not say anything about SMP issues. > (and indeed contained numerous rough edges and bugs), and you're > scared to update to 5.3 which is going to be designated as the > beginning of the 5.3-STABLE branch (and has had a couple of months of > extensive bugfixing and QA)? I would rather downgrade to 5.1 (because I know it works reliably on this piece of equipment), but unfortunately, somewhere during "make installworld", the install binary starts to segfault. truss shows that the 5.1 /usr/bin/install calls the new fstatfs syscall 397. AFAICT this could only happen when the 5.1 install binary is linked against the 5.2 libc. I suppose installworld does not point LD_LIBRARY_PATH at the newly build libraries under /usr/obj? If not, what is the best way to ensure that binaries are linked against suitable libs during installworld? Thanks - SaschaReceived on Sat Oct 02 2004 - 18:49:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:15 UTC