Pfsense won't upgrade from 2.3.5-RELEASE (amd64) Says Up to date.



  • Hi,
    Have a genuine PFSense box that we purchased
    awhile back.
    (pfSense VK-T40E2).

    Has 2.3.5-RELEASE (amd64)
    And says it is up to date when you check for updates.

    I'm thumbing through the posts and trying to find an answer.
    But not finding one.
    Thought I should ask here.
    THANKS.


    2.3.5-RELEASE (amd64)
    built on Mon Oct 30 11:09:03 CDT 2017
    FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE-p22

    Platform nanobsd (4g)
    NanoBSD Boot Slice pfsense0 / da0s1(rw)
    CPU Type AMD G-T40E Processor
    2 CPUs: 1 package(s) x 2 core(s)

    DNS server(s)

    127.0.0.1
    64.233.217.2
    64.233.217.3
    

    Current Base System
    2.3.5
    Latest Base System
    2.3.5
    Status
    Up to date.

    Update Branch is set for 2.4 stable


  • Banned



  • Nope, still not obvious why it won't in place update.
    Nor why it says it's up to date.
    I'm guessing this
    "Live CD, Embedded, and NanoBSD have been deprecated. A full install is now required. "

    might be what the issue is.
    But's it' still not obvious and easy to miss while reading the top level of the release notes. and searching for forum posts while trying to figure out while it won't update and says it's up to date.
    No need to rudely throw your RTFM card so fast.
    Thanks for your reply as it took me right to the clue I needed..
    Be nice if it didn't say it was up to date when checking when it really is not.


  • Banned

    @n8lbv said in Pfsense won't upgrade from 2.3.5-RELEASE (amd64) Says Up to date.:

    Nope, still not obvious why it won't in place update.

    Really, it clearly says that nanobsd is no longer supported and requires a fresh install.

    Nor why it says it's up to date.

    Because the last released version for nanobsd is 2.3.5, doh.

    It was also announced over 2 years ago: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/108001/heads-up-2-4-does-not-support-i386-or-nanobsd

    If you want to be an admin, especially for security related areas, you need to keep on top of information related to the software you run. But that it took over 1 year after the 2.4 release, and weeks after 2.3 went EOL, for you to act on it clearly shows that you're not qualified for that position.



  • New location/client, I'm gathering information and assessing here.
    I'm sorry you are being a jerk here about this.
    You really are haha.
    I'm expressing my opinion on the interface saying all is fine and up to date.
    If it were under my management it wouldn't be this long before it was checked into.
    Again thanks for leading me to the information I needed.


Log in to reply