Re: Upgrade succeded from 3.8 to 3.9

Lars Bonnesen <none@invalid> wrote:
Ok, the first time I did some upgrades (the first one was from 3.2 to 3.3),
I ran into terrible troubles, so I have therefor just backup up data,
reinstalled with the new system, and restored data again.

But this time, I would give the upgrade from 3.8 to 3.9 a go, and in spite
of a faulty drive (read error in bsd.rd, but did an FTP on that file
afterwards), I got all the way, and system is now running 3.9. (-;

Looking at /, I get this:
boot dated jun 9
bsd dated jun 9 but...
bsd.rd is dated mar 2

Did the bsd.rd copy fail afterall? If so, how can I resolve the error?

I'm not sure. Anyway, just download it again if it bothers you, and
check against MD5 and/or CKSUM. bsd.rd is not required for a functional
system (but it is pretty useful to get a system back into a functional
state when *** happens, so it's useful to have lying around
regardless).

Afterwards, I did this:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade39.html
patch -C -p0 < upgrade39.patch

but I am not sure how to read the output. It gives me a lot of:



Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|--- etc/lynx.cfg Sat Sep 10 17:15:28 2005
|+++ 39/etc/lynx.cfg Wed Feb 15 19:46:16 2006
--------------------------
Patching file etc/lynx.cfg using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 5.
Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|--- etc/rc.conf Sat Sep 10 17:15:07 2005
|+++ 39/etc/rc.conf Wed Feb 15 19:45:58 2006
--------------------------
Patching file etc/rc.conf using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 33.
Hunk #2 succeeded at 54.
Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|--- etc/ssh/ssh_config Sat Sep 10 17:15:10 2005
|+++ 39/etc/ssh/ssh_config Wed Feb 15 19:46:01 2006
--------------------------
Patching file etc/ssh/ssh_config using Plan A...
Hunk #1 succeeded at 39.



that is a lot of succeded. It is not stating any errors. Can I then do a
patch -p0 < upgrade39.patch without any problems?

It should work, unless you depend on behaviour that was changed in 3.9.
Personally, I'd review the diffs to each file that I actually used
separately, but the above would work.

Is that it... is it really so simpel???

Yes. ;-)
.