Re: last question about up-to-date ( I hope )
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]
last question about up-to-date ( I hope )
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 ?! Vahric ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: last question about up-to-date ( I hope )
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 . Personally, I prefer to have the current sources on the machine, so I can examine security breaches etc... But the main advantage is that downloading source diffs requires much less bandwidth than, say, newly compiled binaries. Tracking -STABLE or -CURRENT with cvsup via a 56k modem line is a viable option. I wouldn't like to download big binaries everytime a small patch fixes something. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
