Here is a quick guide for upgrading your FreeBSD 5.1 to the newly released 5.2.
Upgrading from FreeBSD 5.1 to 5.2
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
CFLAGS= -O2 -pipe
CXXFLAGS+= -funroll-loops COPTFLAGS= -O -pipe XFREE86_VERSION=4
You don’t need the C*FLAGS, because it’s unoffical support by FreeBSD team. Also, you do not need the XFREE86_VERSION=4 because it’s already set to 4 by default. You only need it if you want the 3 version.
WITH_LIBMAP=YES
It’s already build/install by default, so remove this. The only thing that I add in the /etc/make.conf is ALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE=yes, edit the CPUTYPE and few options what you want to build/install.
Commenting out the following in /usr/src/bin/csh/Makefile let me finish the buildworld successfully:
No, you do not need to edit anything. I am able to upgrade 5.1 -> 5.2 without any problem. All I did is follow the /usr/src/Makefile:
# 1. `cd /usr/src’ (or to the directory containing your source tree).
# 2. `make buildworld’
Read the UPDATING (this one I add)
# 3. `make buildkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL_HERE’ (default is GENERIC).
# 4. `make installkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL_HERE’ (default is GENERIC).
# 5. `reboot’ (in single user mode: boot -s from the loader prompt).
# 6. `mergemaster -p’
# 7. `make installworld’
# 8. `mergemaster’
# 9. `reboot’
All I did is follow the /usr/src/Makefile
I mean, there have the notes in the /usr/src/Makefile that I follow it.
Oh no,this reminds me of this guy:: http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1778…
And later his insistence on “the best way to upgrade freebsd”:http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1779…
Well, for one thing: you don’t need to comment out lines in makefiles to get it working, however, you need to set (in my experience anyway) lover settings than O2 in make.conf (O1 worked for me).
Also, I ran into some trouble by leaving CXXFLAGS there in make.make, as you can see in this thread: http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1735…
For your insterest, my make.conf:
PERL_VER=5.6.1
PERL_VERSION=5.6.1
PERL_ARCH=mach
NOPERL=yo
NO_PERL=yo
NO_PERL_WRAPPER=yo
WITH_FAM=yes
WITH_LAME=yes
CPUTYPE=athlon
CFLAGS= -O1 -pipe
COPTFLAGS= -O1 -pipe
SUP_UPDATE=yes
SUP=/usr/local/bin/cvsup
SUPFLAGS= -g -L 2
SUPHOST=cvsup3.FreeBSD.org
SUPFILE=/root/cvsup/standard-supfile
PORTSSUPFILE=/root/cvsup/ports-supfile
KERNCONF=smokie
NO_SENDMAIL=true
DOC_LANG=en_US.ISO8859-1
NO_OPENSSH=true
NO_OPENSSL=true
NO_KERBEROS=true
sorry, should be make.conf instead of make.conf above.
The last five items are just good ideas, if you are using postfix instead of sendmail for instance (so make buildworld won’t overwrite your postfix binary) or if you want to keep up with security fixes via portupgrade
“sorry, should be make.conf instead of make.conf above” – what’s the difference here?
I am interested on why the author lost his custom kernel after buildworld. Does this happen to anybody else here? I have updated quite a number of times of the 4.x. But my custom kernel doesn’t get deleted. Haven’t tried it on 5.x though… Can anyone confirm this, if this should be worth the note? Thanks.
mod this out as a troll if you will – but seeing the amound of hassle required to complete a 0.1 upgrade makes me want to avoid ever installing this operating system. And I have 4 boxes running 4 different things……
I have done cvsup several times on 5.x and there was no such problem. It doesn’t delete my custom kernel config file.
If someone wrote about an operating system you were familiar with and said “I ignored the documentation and the FAQs and the things everyone on all the support lists always says to pay close attention to, and I had problems,” would you blame the OS? That’s exactly what this guy did. The “-j4” option for buildworld, the unsupported make stuff, ignoring /usr/src/UPDATING – it’s exactly what’s constantly pounded into everyone’s head as often as possible that you should *never* do. The fact that he could recover so quickly after screwing up in multiple ways should actually comfort people about how robust this OS is.
There is so little hassle involved in doing an upgrade in FreeBSD the *right* way that even relative newbies do it routinely once a week or once a month with no problems at all; many folks just script it and let it run as a cron job.
Windows XP users: When you upgrade to SP2 there is no need to edit any config files, or manually recompile your kernel. Microsoft, has taken the liberty to do so for you. Hope that helps.
I am interested on why the author lost his custom kernel after buildworld. Does this happen to anybody else here? I have updated quite a number of times of the 4.x. But my custom kernel doesn’t get deleted. Haven’t tried it on 5.x though… Can anyone confirm this, if this should be worth the note? Thanks.
In both 4.x and 5.x, they never delete any of my custom kernel config files, he must have done something wrong as what Jud said that he ignored the handbook, faq and etc. The CVSup will overwrite the GENERIC kernel config at the everytime, so everybody will have to copy and rename it to avoid this.
Yes, and obviously upgrade N production machines from remote is so simple, right?
And SP2 is the best software out there, right?
You obvioulsy know what and where is installed with SP2, right?
Why have I to give full control to anyone else on my machines?
SP2 is only for XBox brains.
dave
The easiest way to create your make.conf is to copy the one already made for you in /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf and uncomment options as you see fit.
🙂
[i]Windows XP users: When you upgrade to SP2 there is no need to edit any config files, or manually recompile your kernel. Microsoft, has taken the liberty to do so for you. Hope that helps.</I<
Might I add a very interesting point…
Quite simple: “Always follow the manual!”.
He would have been better off to have backed up his
data and then re-installed 5.2 from ISOs.
Sean
And of course, seeing that he doesn’t seem to understand a lot about what a source upgrade is, he should’ve used the binary upgrade from sysinstall.
I just updated several production servers via a binary upgrade today – you have to mess things up good if you are able to mess that up
.
How to avoid being modded as a troll: include in your message a phrase like: “mod this out as a troll if you will”.
No OS is as easy to upgrade as FreeBSD if you follow the very well laid out documentation. And it was made clear that this ‘quick guide’ is bogus. I quick guide would be the one bsdrocks posted.
Besides, a .1 upgrade is much more than a simple service pack. Tons of new features might be added (think of PAE added to 4.9 – http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=pae&sektion=4&manpath=Free…) even to a .1 release, but the point of bsd-ish source upgrade (or binary upgrade if you choose to download the iso) is that you can use the same method and steps to upgrade from 4.5 to 4.9 if you wish. Or from 4.9 to 5.2. In case of the latter, the difference between the two is significant (much greater than between say win95 and winME). Yet you can keep the progs installed from ports.
What does XP have anything to do with this article? Please stop astroturfing.
By the way if you don’t like the whole ‘buildworld’ process, you can always upgrade via ftp, cd, etc…
hi,
i have FreeBSD 5.1 RELEASE on one partition on my HDD;
but, after installing linux, i lost the bootmenu that i had configured with FreeBSD ;
how can i access the partition again?
also,
i keep getting a message abt some calcru : and some negative time .. it seems to be a problem with enabling apm etc.. though im running on a desktop, i might have enabled it..
once im abel to bootinto bsd, how to disable apm? i googled for it, and find that not much has been done to remove that error;
as for speed, i find that vectorlinux is faaar faster than win98 or FreeBSD or any other linux;
i was wondering if by disabling some services, and tweaking some otehr kernel options i could improve the speed of BSD;
cheers
ram
Sir,
With 97% of the desktop world using Microsoft Windows, and a staggering majority of them using Microsoft Windows XP Home and Microsoft Windows XP Professional, I am sure that quite a few Windows XP users are reading this article. As you know, Microsoft Windows XP is designed for the slightly less technical reader, who might be confused by such detalis as kernel rebuiid, make.conf, /usr/src/local/X11/XF86/upgrade.txt.readme, etc. So was merely affirming for them, that when they upgrade, all such niceties and formalities will be taken care of them by the very hard working, fine people at Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com).
other=/dev/hda[x]
table=/dev/hda
loader=/boot/chain.b
label=FreeBSD
wow thats a lot of fud. first your 97% is wrong, second the staggering majority is flat out idiotic.
a majority, but barely use windows 98 STILL and will continue for a while. XP is not all that significant whehter you like it or not.
“No OS is as easy to upgrade as FreeBSD if you follow the very well laid out documentation”
Can’t argue there. The new binary updater works well too. DragonFly (being based on FreeBSD) is also ridiculously easy to upgrade from source, and is almost as well documented (they lack the FreeBSD Handbook, which for the time being, applies almost equally to both in this regard).
DragonFly does not yet have a binary updater however, though I can’t see why FreeBSD’s would be hard to port.
Yep, I’m sure upgrading to XP is easier in certain respects (in the sense of replacement rather than literally upgrading, since an upgrade rather than a clean reinstall of the new Win system is almost always guaranteed to screw things up IME). OTOH, there are little quirks one has to live with (e.g., if one wishes to enable W2K to boot or run from RAID, the installer doesn’t recognize CDs other than W2K’s own, so one must image the RAID driver onto a floppy; odd, when you can load a RAID driver from CD when installing WinNT).
But of course the major advantage is that upgrading FreeBSD (or installing it from scratch), while perhaps slightly more effort, is absolutely free.
“This is just the kind of thing that should be modded down: useless, misleading, evil. Why wasn’t it?”
For an article that is expected to NOT get more than 50 comments, why mod down? OSNews is after all… a .com (mod this down and you take the bait
)