2.0.2 ???
-
So is the December 7th version the one? ;D
-
Yes, it's the Dec 7th build.
-
Thanks Jim! Been running on 2 machines here since the 8th without issue. :)
-
@ chpalmer,
you are using pppoe?If yes can you confirm this problem?
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,57020.0.html -
Upgraded 32bit Nano smoothly. :)
Impressive list of fixes/additions. Thanks to everyone involved.The only thing I would say is that although everything went smoothly the 'reloading packages in the background' message displayed for what seemed like an age and it didn't go away by itself. I had no idea how long it might take, though I'm sure I could have manually installed the three packages I had far quicker, so I just waited. Eventually I refreshed the page and it had gone. More an observation than anything else.
Steve
-
NanoBSD can take quite a while to install/update packages compared to a full install. The only issue to watch out for is when a package reinstall fails on upgrade that banner may never go away. If you need to in the future, you can clear it from Diag > Backup/Restore using the button there to clear the package lock.
But the best thing to do first is to check the console (serial or vga) to see what the system is actually doing before resetting it.
-
Hi…
Updated my 2.0.1 64bit which turned it into a i386.
A lot of my packages need to be reinstalled due to the changed i386 binaries...Give it a try , not really needed a 64-bit anyway....
/Michael
-
Sure you had the right update URL selected? I updated both an amd64 and an i386 image earlier and each upgraded properly from the update URL.
-
Sure you had the right update URL selected? I updated both an amd64 and an i386 image earlier and each upgraded properly from the update URL.
Not too helpful, but i've also updated 2.0.1 full installs on both i386 and 64 bit today and all went very well. Haven't done my embedded ones yet but later today I will.
-
Hi…
Updated my 2.0.1 64bit which turned it into a i386.
A lot of my packages need to be reinstalled due to the changed i386 binaries...Give it a try , not really needed a 64-bit anyway....
/Michael
You must have done something wrong because I updated my 2.0.1 amd64 install to 2.0.2 and it stayed 64bit. It installed perfect, no surprises, everything just worked.
Oh one thing I did notice, I added in an 'authorized_keys' into the root's ~/.ssh and it got deleted, had to put it back.. (the id_rsa file and known_hosts files remained however)
-
Oh one thing I did notice, I added in an 'authorized_keys' into the root's ~/.ssh and it got deleted, had to put it back.. (the id_rsa file and known_hosts files remained however)
Don't do that. Add keys in the user manager where they belong.
-
You can do that? Cool, I didnt even know it was a feature. I will switch to doing it that way.
-
Oh one thing I did notice, I added in an 'authorized_keys' into the root's ~/.ssh and it got deleted, had to put it back.. (the id_rsa file and known_hosts files remained however)
Don't do that. Add keys in the user manager where they belong.
Btw in UserManager there is no indication/hint that an account has an authorized_keys key defined. It's only after one clicks the "Click to paste an auth key" that UM webpage expands to show it.
PS: v2.1-BETA
-
I used the Invoke Upgrade option in the WebGUI to upgrade my 2.0.1 32bit-i386 installation and it was the fastest and easiest upgrade I've ever done to one of my machines.
The only thing I noticed was that I had to check the box to enable the pfBlocker package, the only package I'm using. The package didn't need to be reinstalled, just the box to enable it checked, and it kept all the CIDR lists I had set up.
