On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote:

> Hi ,
>
>     For keep up to date FreeBSD I think all people are using source update
> method ( When I sent a message to list almost everybody adviced this ) Only
> one person said that binary update but this is not recommanded because
> compiled version always work better and I saw that compile update program is
> not working quickly because  Colin Percival waiting lest version ....
>
>
>     I'm just wonder Why patching is not used instead of source update..
> it's patching source tree too for security bugs ... I checking output of the
> cvsup -g -L 2 stable-supfile command . it's only download openssh , bind and
> like this almost what writen in security advisories .
>
>     if you said soruce-update method more then security update Thats Okey .
> But I want to know or understand if I don't want to use new features and
> only interest with security updates ( patch updates ) Why patches does not
> enough ?!

You _are_ downloading patches when you use cvsup. However, the tool
provides a handy level of automation and therefore can prevent simple
pilot error compared to hand-application of patches.

You are not required to track the -STABLE branch. Every (recent) release
also has a maintenance branch, which merely receives security updates.
Cvsup can track these just as easily for you. The handbook has more
information on this.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Political talk? / What is said can be unsaid / with good old BS
  -- ASCII haiku
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to