Re: sysupgrade -s by mistake

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 08:04:46PM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
[...]

> unrelated suggestion: script your chroot updates. then it becomes
> * sysupdate -s
> * pkg_add -u
> * updatechroot
> done...
> yes, getting your updatchroot script working perfectly is a bit of
> testing, but SO worth it once done.

Yes of course, this makes sense and Yes, and that's what I'm going to
do. I feel a bit sorry for myself that it's the fact of having to do
this every time there's an update that's pushing me to do it today...

> back to the topic: well, here's your choices:
> 1) run -current until next release. Probably no issue, other than you
> may need/want to do a sysupgrade -s along the way.
>
> 2) push the system backwards to 7.8. May create all kinds of terrifying
> issues...or may work just fine.

I won't take such a risk.

> A couple thoughts...
> 1) IF you haven't yet upgraded packages, pushing backwards may work
> fairly well. IF you have upgraded your packages, I'd suggest riding
> the -current wave. Really.

I did upgrade everything, and took care of running sysclean in
addition to remove old files that are no longer needed. (I always do
this.)

> 2) I just happened to do this today to troubleshoot a bizarre and
> subtle problem(*). I did not have problems with the backwards push,
> and in fact, I'm still running packages from the week old snapshot.
> However, the "fanciest" package I have on this machine is "rsync",
> and rsync is really easy-going in terms of dependencies.
>
> Your millage will differ. But the official answer is "forward only"
> and if you wish to push backwards, you get to keep the pieces if
> it breaks. But then, you were already semi-resigned to reinstalling.
> But personally...I normally only run snapshots.

You've just convinced me to do the same thing, thank you.

> Nick.
>
> (*) This problem probably won't impact you unless you run a very old
> revision of the firmware on an ixl(4) card. But I haven't had a
> chance to properly track down the problem yet, so ixl(4) MAY be
> innocent.

Luckily, no, that's not the case for me!

Thanks,

Robert