2.0.2 ???
-
Not really, as I've said several times throughout this thread it's mostly about the right people having enough time to do some final tests and get things signed and released.
-
20th october is EuroBSD and the 2.1 should be out by then?
-
That would be nice, but I'm not sure it's going to happen. There are quite a few showstoppers left and we haven't even had a formal beta yet, let alone an RC.
-
What the current showstoppers??
-
2.1 showstoppers are not relevant to this thread. Check redmine and/or start a new thread.
-
They'll be up soon :-)
Jim, It's been over a month.
Can you give the group some idea of how PfSense defines "soon"?
A couple months, a quarter, a half…..? -
Well we've always defined a release as "when it's ready". Someone had found some issues since my last post in limited testing so we had to fix that and make more.
-
Someone had found some issues since my last post in limited testing so we had to fix that and make more.
I always thought that was the purpose behind release candidates.
-
It is, but for whatever reason things keep turning up that are showstoppers or can't be ignored.
-
I just changed my 2.0.1 to use ntpd rather than openntp, with a GPS and PPS; it's working great.
Glad to see that openntp is going away, and ntpd stats will be graphed in the GUI! I see you just committed an ntpd fix a few days ago in 2.1 … I guess the same fix will be in the 2.0.2 tree. I'd be happy to test the new ntpd aspects of 2.0.2 if any new 2.0.2 RCs happen to show up :)
-
I'd be happy to test the new ntpd aspects of 2.0.2 if any new 2.0.2 RCs happen to show up :)
There have been 2.0.2 RCs, they just weren't made public. Nor has the purported release made it to the download mirrors either.
Jim, when you talk about showstoppers, are you referring to 2.1 or 2.0.2 showstoppers? If issues with 2.0.2 are arising, then perhaps it's worthwhile putting an "RC" build of the current code out there and getting some testing feedback from users?
-
The last couple things were small fixes that were easy to confirm, but could have potentially been trouble in a release.
The testing we need to do for this is mostly things we need to confirm ourselves, making sure things work properly on specific hardware, install/upgrade tests and so on.
-
This is a bad thread. From reading this thread I would say there is a hidden agenda and totally opposite to the open source philosophy.
This is not saying that it is, but the responses from the dev's you can tell are not saying everything.Please if you are not going to fully say what is going on, don't respond. It's giving me bad vibes reading this, even though my personal belief is that it's just written out wrong. My guess is that they were hoping for 2.1 to be released and not have to deal with 2.02. 2.1 is delayed and they are not sure if they even want to release 2.02. Just my guess….
Can we close this thread and move on. Would have been better for people not to think a 2.02 was ever even coming (that's what I thought until this thread). -
From reading this thread I would say there is a hidden agenda and totally opposite to the open source philosophy.
That's not true. The source code is still freely available from Github, and anybody with the means and time to compile the code themselves can have a copy of 2.0.2. I agree that this whole situation has a slightly odd sense to it, but considering that we're not paying for pfSense I'm not inclined to press the issue too hard, and I don't recommend anybody else do so either.
-
Read my explanation earlier in the thread. The builds are already tagged as release. We cannot do snapshots of such a build because clients would not recognize the "official" release when we post it. Yes it has taken longer than anticipated but it is just a point release. It contains some important fixes but nothing so critical as to warrant rushing it.
-
Had to make yet another new set of images again…
If you really want to test the images, they can be found here – but if you try them, do so knowing full well that you will need to manually do an upgrade to the official 2.0.2-RELEASE or subsequent image if this image is not the final one. If this is the actual release image, then no action will be needed. They are not yet signed, so the final hash values are also not available.
There is no way to use auto update to upgrade to these images, but if you use the console upgrade by URL function you can feed it the URL of a firmware update file that way.
-
Had to make yet another new set of images again…
If you really want to test the images, they can be found here – but if you try them, do so knowing full well that you will need to manually do an upgrade to the official 2.0.2-RELEASE or subsequent image if this image is not the final one. If this is the actual release image, then no action will be needed. They are not yet signed, so the final hash values are also not available.
There is no way to use auto update to upgrade to these images, but if you use the console upgrade by URL function you can feed it the URL of a firmware update file that way.
Cheers Jim, much appreciated :) Going to give this a try now.
-
Just installed on one of my remote offices. (no danger if goes down.)
MLPPP bonding 2 dsl connections.
Open VPN to primary data center.
Port forwards for backup email server, private company web server, and security camera's.
Upgraded just fine!
:)
-
I'm having some issues with pfBlocker on this version. Is it just a matter of the package maintainers fixing it up for 2.0.2?
-
pfBlocker is working for me in 2.1-BETA0 as well as 2.0.1 - the same code, and I can't see any version-specific checks in the code. So it is a bit surprising that something happens with an in-between version like 2.0.2. What are the issues?
(if it's more than a quick issue and fix, then probably start a separate thread)
