On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:55:15PM -0900, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:00, Gary Kline said:
> >
> This issue comes up about every six months. If you google the mailing 
> list you will find extensive discussion about why binary upgrades are 
> a bad idea. 

        Well, certainly not upgrading the "world" and kernel....

> If you want to upgrade using packages only 
> use 'portupgrade -PP'. Bear in mind it takes the package build 
> cluster a couple of weeks to catch up. For security reasons we 
> (maintainers) don't build packages and building binaries for every 
> possible configuration would place an extreme load on the build 
> cluster (not to mention the space required to host them all).

        I'm willing to donate one 400Mhz Kayak; just sans memory or disk.
        Seriously, but I think the cluster needs much faster hardware.
        At any rate, I was thinking of inbetweener-patches; so that it
        would be possible to stay current between pkg-1.2.3_4 and
        pkg-1.2.3_5, say.  This, only for the vanilla i386 packages.

        Still, given the variables of CPUTYPE and the possible/probably
        diffs in -Optimization and other CFLAGS variations, it's pretty
        clear that evn a vanilla patch would be overkill.  With almost
        17K ports, you guys have enough on your hands!


> Beech
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Beech Rintoul - Port Maintainer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> /"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign  | FreeBSD Since 4.x
> \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail   | http://www.freebsd.org
>  X  - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release:
> / \  - http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.2R/announce.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Gary Kline  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.thought.org  Public Service Unix

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to