> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:49:47AM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > >>... I'm not quite sure what you are talking about - neither on >> http://www.openbsd.org/errata37.html nor on >> http://www.openbsd.org/errata36.html >> i'm aware of any reference to em(4). > > That's true, but it looks like there is a minor, unannounced patch to > sys/dev/pci/if_em.c -- version 1.39 is -release, but version 1.39.2.1 is > tagged for -stable. > > See http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/pci/if_em.c > >> > (Btw: why are just critical patches listed?)). >> >> The patch branch is a good choice if you want to maintain >> a system to be as stable as possible. You do not want to >> have anything patched in there unless it is critical. > > And, per FAQ #5.1, the stable branch includes "...some simple fixes that > do not merit an errata entry." This must be one of those. > >> ...install a clean copy from you CDROM, then apply once >> more all the patches from >> http://www.openbsd.org/errata??.html > > The other choice is to follow -stable, using AnonCVS, CVSup, > or CTM. > >> ...As long as you use the patch branch, the number of patches >> is small, so you can (and should) look at each individual >> patch anyway, just before you apply it. Thus, automation >> is no issue in the first place. > > I would agree, if one is manually applying the eratta patches manually. > That's not *exactly* the same as following the CVS patch branch. > But when following -stable via the CVS tree, there are indeed minor fixes > that are not on the errata pages; these get installed as well. > >> ...Helping you would be easier if you explained more clearly >> what you are trying to accomplish and why you are patching >> so much that you lose track of what you are doing. > > I absolutely agree. Our assumption is a botched attempt at installing > -stable, but we really don't know. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested in his thread-starting e-mail: > >>That would work if the users use just "make build" and if they don#t play >>with compiler-settings. > > Best practice is to first rebuild the -stable kernel before building a > -stable userland (FAQ 5.3). > > -Josh Grosse-
Yes but that's not exactly what I think about. I think about a enviroment where e.g. multiple Boxes have to be checked and where not all Boxes have e.g. Internetacces. I thought about placing a "patches37.checksum" wich includes all checksumes of the files wich where changed (e.g. also the EM-Driver). So somebody could write a Perl-Script wich fetchs this file and checks the checksumms versus the local files. So an admin could download just exactly what he/she needs by hand. I think about e.g. 3rd world ppl. who a) don#t have the bandwith to get a CVS-Update e.g. every week (Modem!) or who have e.g. a limit of e.g. 1GB. If somebody with a limit of 1Gb would fetch the stable-branch e.g. every day just to get ALL possible patches wich where NOT losted he/she would waste a lot of time and also traffic (even it's compressed). As descriped the file at e.g. the OpenBSD-Webserver should contain JUSt the checksums so that the Script (as I mentioned, e.g. Perl) is able to compare the checksums. The file at the server should (ofcourse) just include the files wich changed since the release. That would enable an admin to check if his OS is up2date and include also the minor-fixes. If the comparsion of the checksums failed the Script could provide an output like: Checksum for /path/to/e.g./em_driver missmatch. So the admin would know that there's a) an update and b) that he/she didn't included it... That's the whole Idea and because the file at the server contains just the checksums of the files wich where updated it isn#t big and shouldn't "hurt" (bandwith, traffic..). At least this solution is faster as CVS and saves CPU,Time,RAM and Bandwith for the server. Because if there's no Update why should e.g. I use "cvs -q update..." to check the Src? I hope I wa sbale to tell you more exactly how I mean it. I think that solution is easy, it will work (depends to the guys who maintain the files with the checksums) and it saves memory and co at the servers because ppl. don#t have to use CVS to check-out the src every day. They just have to runt hat script and if a checksum missmatch was detected they'll run CVS anyway.. Kind regards, Sebastian
