Showing update for 2.1?
-
Noticed that update popped up?
But does not seem right to me - I sure am not running nano version
http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_RELENG_8_1/i386/pfSense_RELENG_2_0/.updaters/
Which brings up a good question, if your running 2.1 and doing git syncs – where should we point the updater too.. I only know of this location to get 2.1 builds http://files.pfsense.org/jimp/ipv6/
-
(…)
I only know of this location to get 2.1 builds http://files.pfsense.org/jimp/ipv6/http://lists.pfsense.org/pipermail/dev/2012-January/000121.html
-
Are those ready for actual use? I don't mind testing code – but move to freebsd 9 from current version would like to see others have done it. Not really in mood to have to redo my router if something goes wrong.
-
2.1-DEVELOPMENT (i386)
built on Fri Jan 20 14:56:49 CET 2012
FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASEGot it on my test box right now… No packages available, says it cant reach pfsense.com... Had to re-save my Bridge interface (LAN and WAN bridged together with a natted maintenance interface) to get the gateway to show as "Up" on the dashboard...
Used an "Upgrade" firmware onto a 2.1, based on 8.1 install...
So if your up for some experimentation... :P
Very snappy on my AMD XP2400...
I may gitsync this guy later and see if I can break it... :-X ;D :D :) Unless someone warns me not to... :P
-
No packages available, says it cant reach pfsense.com…
Same here. Probably because it's looking for pkg_config.9.xml which isn't there.
Steve
-
Whatever is on the snapshot server is probably just the 2.0.1 official build.
We're actually going to target FreeBSD 8.3 for pfSense 2.1, and 9.x for 2.2. We're hoping to get 2.1 out next month sometime and 9.x is not in good enough shape to hit that target.
-
Whatever is on the snapshot server is probably just the 2.0.1 official build.
We're actually going to target FreeBSD 8.3 for pfSense 2.1, and 9.x for 2.2. We're hoping to get 2.1 out next month sometime and 9.x is not in good enough shape to hit that target.
That was a jaw dropper when I read Chris' post last night about this but only because of all the hard work we know you guys are putting in… :)
For what its worth- The upgrade from 2.1 based on 8.1 to 2.1 based on 9.0 went very smooth. I hit the save button on a few of the gui pages while trying to get the gateway to show as "up" but thats about it...
Thanks for the update Jim!
-
My VM was also good on 9, but we had someone else that couldn't keep a box up more than an hour or two if that, it would hard lock or freak out in other ways.
Also if you have looked on the freebsd-stable list, there are numerous issues with 9.0-RELEASE that make 9-STABLE a better target, but if we do that, they completely redid carp as well as a few other things we'd have to change out. It's doable, but it would be a lot more work than we have the time for in our timetable.
We want to get a good 2.1 out in plenty of time for people to get migrated in advance of IPv6 launch day.
Now for the good news, once we're past 2.1 we can start pushing on 9 but at that point we won't have all of the IPv6 bits to worry about finishing as well as the 9.x bits. So it's a bit easier goal to have at that point.
-
We want to get a good 2.1 out in plenty of time for people to get migrated in advance of IPv6 launch day.
Now for the good news, once we're past 2.1 we can start pushing on 9 but at that point we won't have all of the IPv6 bits to worry about finishing as well as the 9.x bits. So it's a bit easier goal to have at that point.
Yup! Totally understand that… And appreciate everything you guys do!
And always happy to install on the test box here if it helps in any way... trouble reports, crashes ect... If it breaks it I just blow up the drive and start over. ;D
-
We will probably start up some 2.1 snapshots on 8.2 or 8-STABLE here in the near future (perhaps this week?) but I'm not sure I'd recommend them yet for "production" use, as we need to make sure we get all of the patches sorted before they're in a good state.
-
Interesting stuff!
The two boxes I've run the 9 based Nano image on have run like a champ. The only issue I had was not being able to set the password and a delay during boot.
The updated driver support that will come with either 8.3 or 9 is what I'm looking forward to so in that respect it doesn't make much difference.
Is there anything big in 9 that we're missing out on? ;)Steve
-
There are a few things, but I'm not sure what all has been backported for 8.3. There is probably a list somewhere on FreeBSD's site.
-
Which version of pf will be available in pfsense 2.1 / FreeBSD 8.3 ?
-
Yes
-
Hrm. There's a goal (according to a prior posting in this thread) of pfSense 2.1 sometime in March. FreeBSD 8.3 is currently targeted for release around 23 March…see for instance one of the release engineering pages:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/8.3R/schedule.html
Despite everybody's best efforts, FreeBSD has had it's fair share of schedule slippages over the years (no disrepect intended towards any former or current members of the FreeBSD Project...many project schedules slip for a variety of reasons). Please be prepared for the possibilty that FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE might slip as well (note there's only a week between the target release date and the end of March).
Bruce.
PS. Somebody asked about backports to 8.3. In theory the release notes for 8.3 will document all the significant changes since 8.2. In the past they used to be updated on a rolling basis, but the trend recently has been more to do the release notes at the end of the release cycle. Worst case, the commit logs for the 8/stable branch are publicly available.
-
Oh yeah, we know those things all too well :-)
If we keep our patches and such up to date and keep builds going we can time it pretty well to go along with 8.3-RELEASE, but we expect some slipping I'm sure. A goal is just a goal after all. We don't like to ship things until they are ready.
-
802.11n is something I am hoping we get soon on FreeBSD. Is it available yet (on 8.3 or 9?)
-
802.11n is something I am hoping we get soon on FreeBSD. Is it available yet (on 8.3 or 9?)
No. Some 802.11n capable devices are supported in 802.11g compatible mode.
