# 9.1-RELEASE is available on FTP



## izotov (Dec 11, 2012)

9.1-RELEASE seems to be available on the FTP sites.
I am just downloading it from ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/9.1/.


----------



## chatwizrd (Dec 11, 2012)

Why do they all say size 0b.


----------



## kpa (Dec 11, 2012)

Symbolic links will show as 0 byte files on a web browser.


----------



## Beastie (Dec 11, 2012)

It depends on the browser.

Some, like elinks, display the size correctly (noting that the size of a symlink = the size of the file's path in ASCII characters/bytes).

Opera doesn't display symlink and directory sizes at all.

...


----------



## fonz (Dec 11, 2012)

izotov said:
			
		

> 9.1-RELEASE seems to be available on the FTP sites.


Note that there has been no official announcement yet. The ISO images may still be subject to last-minute changes until then.

Fonz


----------



## Martillo1 (Dec 11, 2012)

You will be best served downloading from a mirror nearby instead from the central server. If those are not synced yet, you can use one of the primary mirrors. It is in your interest since the central server has its bandwidth throttled.


----------



## Sfynx (Dec 11, 2012)

I'll just wait until the announcement before trusting the freebsd-update(8) repositories.


----------



## frijsdijk (Dec 13, 2012)

Done a test install.. even already built our pkg-repositories with poudriere. All works fine!


----------



## jigzat (Dec 14, 2012)

is it possible to update from 9.1RC3??


----------



## Dutchman01 (Dec 14, 2012)

Yes,


```
# mv /usr/src /usr/src.old
# svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/release/9.1.0 /usr/src
# mergemaster -p
# cd /usr/src
# make buildworld
# make buildkernel
# make installkernel
# reboot
# cd /usr/src
# make installworld
# mergemaster -iU
# reboot
```


----------



## yom (Dec 14, 2012)

Good practice to rebuild world :

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/makeworld.html


----------



## xtaz (Dec 14, 2012)

Dutchman01 said:
			
		

> # svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/release/9.1.0 /usr/src



Wouldn't it be better to use svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/releng/9.1 ? With the URL that you said it will always be 9.1-RELEASE at the point of the release. With my URL you can svn update to get security updates and errata as they are released with the -p patchlevels.

Also going from 9.1-RC3 to 9.1-RELEASE your procedure, whilst it should be commended for being accurate, is a bit overkill in my opinion. No reason you can't just go for:


```
# rm -rf /usr/src (only need to do this once the first time until you start using svn)
# svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/releng/9.1 /usr/src
# cd /usr/src
# rm -rf /usr/obj/usr/src (quicker than running cleandir)
# make buildworld && make buildkernel
# make installkernel
# make installworld
# mergemaster -Ui
# shutdown -r now
# cd /usr/src
# make check-old
# make delete-old
# make delete-old-libs (only if you are sure no ports are using them)
```

To be fair as well, whilst I'm 100% sure this is safe for 9.1-RC3 -> 9.1-RELEASE, I have used this procedure remotely via ssh for every minor version upgrade since 4.1. The only time I ever do the single user mode, mergemaster -p stuff is on major version upgrades from say 8 to 9.


----------



## jigzat (Dec 14, 2012)

Wow thank you very much


----------



## kpa (Dec 14, 2012)

xtaz said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be better to use svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/releng/9.1 ? With the URL that you said it will always be 9.1-RELEASE at the point of the release. With my URL you can svn update to get security updates and errata as they are released with the -p patchlevels.



Yes, see here:

http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?p=199743&postcount=20


----------



## chatwizrd (Dec 14, 2012)

Dutchman01 said:
			
		

> Yes,
> 
> # mv /usr/src /usr/src.old
> # svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/release/9.1.0 /usr/src
> ...



Why do you have to mv /usr/src? I just did svn switch command and it worked fine.


----------



## kpa (Dec 14, 2012)

A note about make installworld.

While you can usually do it over a live system running in multiuser mode I'd still recommend rebooting first in to single user mode after doing make installkernel. First, if you're on a system running in non-default securelevel(7) the make installworld is going to fail because of schg file flags on critical system binaries. Second, the future releases may implement a system protection method similar but separate to securelevel(7) that again may prevent installing over system binaries on a multiuser system.


----------



## bart (Dec 14, 2012)

freebsd-update works also


----------



## xtaz (Dec 14, 2012)

chatwizrd said:
			
		

> Why do you have to mv /usr/src? I just did svn switch command and it worked fine.



It'll be because he's assuming the /usr/src that exists there at the moment isn't one that was checked out via svn, and was installed as part of the installation of RC3 I imagine. So you ditch it first, then check it out again from svn.


----------



## xtaz (Dec 14, 2012)

kpa said:
			
		

> A note about make installworld.
> 
> While you can usually do it over a live system running in multiuser mode I'd still recommend rebooting first in to single user mode after doing make installkernel. First, if you're on a system running in non-default securelevel(7) the make installworld is going to fail because of schg file flags on critical system binaries. Second, the future releases may implement a system protection method similar but separate to securelevel(7) that again may prevent installing over system binaries on a multiuser system.



If that is the case then I hope there will be a way to disable this protection method (whilst taking responsibility for possible foot shooting obviously). Doing something like this would mean nobody could upgrade their systems remotely over ssh without having an expensive server with lights out OOB management features, or at least some way of remotely accessing the serial port, if it even has a serial port.

Whilst it could be said that if you are running a server remotely then you should have these features, there are a lot of people like myself who maintain cheap servers that are kept in a separate building to where I sit. I could visit the servers by driving 10 miles if needed but I would prefer to do it remotely, and only visit them if it went wrong and I had to fix it on the console.

Also I have a small mini-server at home which is running headless out by my front door because that's where my router is. If I wanted to access the console I would have to switch it off and take it into my living room to connect it up to my TV as the monitor.


----------



## jigzat (Dec 14, 2012)

Why hasn't been announced yet, it is burning in my hands.


----------



## shepper (Dec 15, 2012)

> Why hasn't been announced yet, it is burning in my hands.



Were you one of those who opened their gifts early?


----------



## jigzat (Dec 15, 2012)

Kinda I used to like to search for them and rattle the boxes out.:e


----------



## zspider (Dec 15, 2012)

jigzat said:
			
		

> Kinda I used to like to search for them and rattle the boxes out.:e



I used to do that too. I'm currently running 9.1-RELEASE with the exception of the aforementioned issue, it works great.


----------



## MasterOne (Dec 15, 2012)

So how comes the release images are already available since 4th December, and still no announcement yet?


----------



## frijsdijk (Dec 17, 2012)

MasterOne said:
			
		

> So how comes the release images are already available since 4th December, and still no announcement yet?



It's probably the first step in the preparations of getting everything ready:

1) uploading ISO images to master ftp servers
2) syncing that over the all the mirrors
3) package building

And I'm assuming that while all that's going on, the security team is scrutinizing the 9.1-RELEASE to see if they can find anything that could stop the show.

And finally:

4) release announcement.


----------



## Dutchman01 (Dec 18, 2012)

Well it seems they have extra work as it normally did not took so long


----------



## eadler@ (Dec 18, 2012)

izotov said:
			
		

> 9.1-RELEASE seems to be available on the FTP sites.
> I am just downloading it from ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/9.1/.




9.1 has *not* yet been released.  Please wait for the announcement.  ISOs have been pulled in the past for last minute bugs.


----------



## Beastie (Dec 18, 2012)

Some mirrors still don't have the ISOs. Also remember that all 9.1 packages had to be rebuilt because of the security incident:


> As mentioned in the original announcement, a package set uploaded in preparation for the upcoming FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE could not be verified, and so was removed.


----------



## jigzat (Dec 19, 2012)

eadler@ said:
			
		

> 9.1 has *not* yet been released.  Please wait for the announcement.  ISOs have been pulled in the past for last minute bugs.



Couldn't they just release an update for those last moment issues?, I mean I'm not complaining or pushing around I'm just curious


----------



## kkt (Dec 19, 2012)

Many people want to upgrade just once, following the releases, and then not have to upgrade again a few weeks later.  Thanks for the Christmas present, FreeBSD!


----------



## xtaz (Dec 19, 2012)

The iso's and official release announcement etc are only important really for a first installation. Otherwise I don't see why people care. I just install the latest iso I can get my hands on, which in my case for my latest server install was 9.1-BETA1, and then I upgraded it by getting the source via svn up to 9.1-RC3, and then about two weeks ago up to 9.1-RELEASE after they changed the tag. They haven't made any changes at all to the source code since so I am basically running 9.1-RELEASE. The fact it's not announced is irrelevant. If in the rare event there are any changes made I'll just svn update it again and rebuild whatever has changed. Not too difficult.

I've been running FreeBSD since version 4.1, including a few years running -CURRENT, and have got to know exactly what is safe to run and what I should be aware of. Which means I will always prefer to run a BETA or RC than bother with an older version. Less hassle to do the mergemaster etc. The only reason I'm not running -STABLE is because then I'm tempted to update it on a weekly basis and I can't be bothered doing that any more. -RELEASE keeps me sane!


----------



## jigzat (Dec 20, 2012)

Ok, it seems is official now http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=36413 were the iso's pulled and changed?


----------



## mad0 (Dec 20, 2012)

jigzat said:
			
		

> Ok, it seems is official now http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=36413 were the iso's pulled and changed?



It's PC-BSD not FreeBSD


----------



## jigzat (Dec 20, 2012)

mad0 said:
			
		

> It's PC-BSD not FreeBSD



Dammit my eyes saw what they wanted to see.x(


----------



## Dutchman01 (Dec 21, 2012)

The hardware doc is now also up and ready: http://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.1R/hardware.html


----------



## frijsdijk (Dec 21, 2012)

Here's some light on the delay: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2012-December/071102.html


----------



## OH (Dec 21, 2012)

frijsdijk said:
			
		

> Here's some light on the delay: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2012-December/071102.html



Annoyingly, that link won't work when you're using IPv6 (error 503)


----------



## izotov (Dec 21, 2012)

My only problem was that bsdinstall reported src.txz to have a wrong checksum though the image file FreeBSD-9.1-RELEASE-amd64-memstick.img itself was with the expected checksum.

Should this be reported somewhere? I downloaded the image from the Slovenian mirror site.


----------



## fbsd1 (Dec 22, 2012)

Today I installed 9.1-release from .iso file.
Install went fine, but there is not a 9.1-release package system yet. Used the packages-current version which worked for me.


----------



## pkubaj (Dec 24, 2012)

It seems it will be officially released on 30 December: http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng/CharterAndRoadMap#Road_Map


----------



## gpw928 (Dec 26, 2012)

Installed from the 386 iso DVD image today.  The operating system installed fine, but post-install sysinstall is claiming that there is no packages/INDEX.  Ports for most things is not an option, as I have a very low bandwidth Internet connectuion.

Is it possible to get or construct an INDEX?

Cheers,


----------



## pkubaj (Dec 26, 2012)

gpw928 said:
			
		

> Installed from the 386 iso DVD image today.  The operating system installed fine, but post-install sysinstall is claiming that there is no packages/INDEX.  Ports for most things is not an option, as I have a very low bandwidth Internet connectuion.
> 
> Is it possible to get or construct an INDEX?
> 
> Cheers,



`# make index`


----------



## gpw928 (Dec 26, 2012)

pkubaj said:
			
		

> `# make index`



Thanks for the suggestion, but that would require a Makefile, and the packages directory on the 386 iso DVD does not have one.

Cheers,


----------



## kpa (Dec 26, 2012)

Fetch it into /usr/ports using fetch(1):

`# mkdir -p /usr/ports`
`# cd /usr/ports`
`# fetch [url]http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/INDEX-9.bz2[/url]`
`# bunzip2 INDEX-9.bz2`


----------



## gpw928 (Dec 26, 2012)

kpa said:
			
		

> Fetch it into /usr/ports using fetch(1):
> 
> `# mkdir -p /usr/ports`
> `# cd /usr/ports`
> ...



Are you suggesting that the INDEX for ports is applicable to the packages directory of the iso DVD?


----------



## kpa (Dec 26, 2012)

It will be for a short amount of time when the packages on the release discs are not completely out of date.

I recommened keeping a copy of the ports tree and updating it with portsnap(8). It's quite lightweight in terms of network bandwidth after the initial extract that requires a full download of a compressed ports tree. It creates the INDEX file automatically and is probably the next best option short of creating the INDEX yourself with make index.


----------



## gpw928 (Dec 29, 2012)

kpa said:
			
		

> It will be for a short amount of time when the packages on the release discs are not completely out of date.



I'm currently copying the packages directory from dvd to /usr, and also doing a 'make index' in the ports directory.  I'll copy the ports INDEX-9 to packages/INDEX and try again.  Will report the results.

Does anyone know how to advise the release team that the packages/INDEX file is missing from the release media?

Cheers,


----------



## gpw928 (Dec 29, 2012)

gpw928 said:
			
		

> I'm currently copying the packages directory from dvd to /usr, and also doing a 'make index' in the ports directory.  I'll copy the ports INDEX-9 to packages/INDEX and try again.  Will report the results.



That almost worked.  No perl to make the index, so I had to fetch it as per kpa above.

Since /usr/ports/INDEX-9 is a super-set of what's in the packages, I deleted the index entries that didn't have packages to create /usr/packages/INDEX.

Then ran 
	
	



```
sysinstall->Configure->Packages->File System->/usr
```

Working a treat...

Thanks everyone,


----------



## izotov (Dec 31, 2012)

It is official now.
The ISOs seem to have not been changed since they first appeared.


----------

