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]"