On 2013-07-20 07:25, aurfalien wrote:
Hi,
Is this;
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2012-September/036777.html
... available in the form of a patch for stable rels?
Its ZFS TRIM support.
According to /usr/src/UPDATING, yes:
20130605:
Added ZFS TRIM
Hi,
Is this;
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2012-September/036777.html
... available in the form of a patch for stable rels?
Its ZFS TRIM support.
- aurf
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
-update-patches-custom-boot-kernel-kernel-which-breaks-remote-access
[3]
# md5 /boot/kernel/kernel
MD5 (/boot/kernel/kernel) = 5757af02283522328c3537b8550a286a
# sha1 /boot/kernel/kernel
SHA1 (/boot/kernel/kernel) = a513c6d0d0a71fa5d74156c000952a5211e41465
# md5 /boot/GENERIC/kernel
MD5 (/boot
--On January 2, 2013 6:45:50 PM +0100 andreas scherrer
ascher...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
This can be considered a follow up to the message How to keep
freebsd-update from trashing custom kernel? sent to this list by Brett
Glass on August 13th 2012 (see [1]). Unfortunately there is no solution
to
The confusion comes from the fact that the original behavior of
freebsd-update was NOT to update the kernel binaries if a custom kernel was
detected.
FYI my /etc/freebsd-update.conf has
# Components of the base system which should be kept updated.
#Components src world kernel
Components src
), even if it is not the current (running)
kernel of the system.
-
Furthermore if I remove the kernel option from the COMPONENTS in
freebsd-update.conf I think I will not get the kernel source patches
anymore, right? Which in turn means I have to get them via some other
mechanism, no?
From
)
kernel of the system.
This is no longer true, though it was true at the time
-
Furthermore if I remove the kernel option from the COMPONENTS in
freebsd-update.conf I think I will not get the kernel source patches
anymore, right? Which in turn means I have to get them via some other
source patches
anymore, right? Which in turn means I have to get them via some other
mechanism, no?
See UpdateIfUnmodified in the man page. You can specify a regex pattern
that prevents the kernel from being modified but still downloads the
sources.
Or you can simply pull source from svn, which I
option from the COMPONENTS in
freebsd-update.conf I think I will not get the kernel source patches
anymore, right? Which in turn means I have to get them via some other
mechanism, no?
See UpdateIfUnmodified in the man page. You can specify a regex pattern
that prevents the kernel from being modified
On 02/01/2013 20:55, Paul Schmehl wrote:
I wasn't thinking when I wrote this. Freebsd-update pulls *binary*
copies of files, so you're not ever going to get the src files to
rebuild your kernel from freebsd-update. You need to pull those in
using svn.
Not so. Take a look at
. There is a LOCAL_PATCHES variable, but it seems to apply only
to 'make release'.
If possible, I would like to avoid writing custom scripts for updating
and building world, because at some point I will forget to use the
script and build everything without the patches. How can I preserve
the current behavior
. There is a LOCAL_PATCHES variable, but it seems to apply
only to 'make release'.
If possible, I would like to avoid writing custom scripts for
updating and building world, because at some point I will forget
to use the script and build everything without the patches. How
can I preserve
and build everything without the patches. How can I preserve
the current behavior of running 'make update make buildworld
buildkernel' while automatically applying custom patches in between?
- Max
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
, because at some point I will forget to use the
script and build everything without the patches. How can I preserve
the current behavior of running 'make update make buildworld
buildkernel' while automatically applying custom patches in between?
Check the system sources out of svn?
This way, you
'.
If possible, I would like to avoid writing custom scripts for updating
and building world, because at some point I will forget to use the
script and build everything without the patches. How can I preserve
the current behavior of running 'make update make buildworld
buildkernel' while automatically
The full process is described here :
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/updating-upgrading-freebsdupdate.html
Alexandre
--- En date de : Lun 12.7.10, Michael mlmichae...@gmail.com a écrit :
De: Michael mlmichae...@gmail.com
Objet: Re: Staying up to date with security patches
À
On 02/07/2010 22:58, Mike Clarke wrote:
On Friday 02 July 2010, Ed Flecko wrote:
Since I will be doing a custom kernel at some point, I won't use
freebsd-update, I'm using cvsup instead.
The alternative would be to just use the source code patches from the
security-advisories mailing list
) file to have an entry like:
*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_8_0
1.) The _0 will keep me up to date with the security patches, which is
what I'm after, right?
2.) How often should one synchronize your server (PC, etc.)? You
don't need to do it daily with cron, do you? I've subscribed
my supfile (in my case,
I'm simply modifying stable-supfile) file to have an entry like:
*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_8_0
1.) The _0 will keep me up to date with the security patches, which is
what I'm after, right?
Yes
2.) How often should one synchronize your server (PC, etc.)? You
Thanks Bill!
:-)
How will I know if there have been security updates that have been
released (which means I need to sync rebuild) since I've installed
the O.S.? For example, I'm running 8.0, and I'll bet there's been
security releases since I first installed. Or...should you just get in
the
In response to Ed Flecko edfle...@gmail.com:
How will I know if there have been security updates that have been
released (which means I need to sync rebuild) since I've installed
the O.S.? For example, I'm running 8.0, and I'll bet there's been
security releases since I first installed.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 01:13:24PM -0700, Ed Flecko wrote:
Thanks Bill!
:-)
How will I know if there have been security updates that have been
released (which means I need to sync rebuild) since I've installed
the O.S.? For example, I'm running 8.0, and I'll bet there's been
security
Thank you again.
After doing a sync/rebuild, does FreeBSD keep a log (somewhere) that
actually shows which security patches have been applied?
Ed
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
the docs correctly, I want my supfile (in my case,
I'm simply modifying stable-supfile) file to have an entry like:
*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_8_0
1.) The _0 will keep me up to date with the security patches, which is
what I'm after, right?
Yes
2.) How often should one synchronize your server
On Friday 02 July 2010, Ed Flecko wrote:
Since I will be doing a custom kernel at some point, I won't use
freebsd-update, I'm using cvsup instead.
The alternative would be to just use the source code patches from the
security-advisories mailing list. That way you don't have to rebuild
Am running 6.4-PRERELEASE.
Received FreeBSD-SA-09:07.libc / FreeBSD-SA-09:08.openssl notifications today,
applied applicable patches correctly.
However, now when anyone attempts to connect to my server via SSH, the
connection is closed after they enter their login password.
/var/log
Am running 6.4-PRERELEASE.
Received FreeBSD-SA-09:07.libc / FreeBSD-SA-09:08.openssl notifications
today, applied applicable patches correctly.
However, now when anyone attempts to connect to my server via SSH, the
connection is closed after they enter their login password.
/var/log
Figured it out.
The libc patch instructions don't tell you to rebuild libutil. You need to
do that.
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Jake Evans wrote:
Am running 6.4-PRERELEASE.
Received FreeBSD-SA-09:07.libc / FreeBSD-SA-09:08.openssl notifications
today, applied applicable patches correctly
On Wednesday 22 April 2009 20:11:09 Jake Evans wrote:
Am running 6.4-PRERELEASE.
Received FreeBSD-SA-09:07.libc / FreeBSD-SA-09:08.openssl notifications
today, applied applicable patches correctly.
However, now when anyone attempts to connect to my server via SSH, the
connection is closed
of this actually
working. More often than not, the write process hangs up and the system has to
be rebooted to recover from that state it is in.
Are there any patches available that improve the reliability of this kind of
mass writing to USB drives. We don't seem to have as much of an issue
I've tried to install latest security patches with
# freebsd-update fetch
# freebsd-update install
# reboot
but after reboot
# uname -r
tells me that I have
7.1-RELEASE
If I understand corectly from handbook, it should tells me -p1?
Is there somthing that I am missing?
... and sorry for my bad
...@mbox.contact.bg:
I've tried to install latest security patches with
# freebsd-update fetch
# freebsd-update install
# reboot
but after reboot
# uname -r tells me that I have
7.1-RELEASE
If I understand corectly from handbook, it should tells me -p1?
Is there somthing that I am missing?
... and sorry
- Original Message -
From: Gabriel Lavoie glav...@gmail.com
To: Ivailo Bonev ibb_o...@mbox.contact.bg
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: freebsd-update and latest security patches
It depends. This update was related to the flaw found
Hello,
We use Apache 1.3 on FreeBSD and for a long time, we have maintained our own
build process separate from the ports collection because we have some local
patches.
These are accounting patches, of interest to no one but us, so I have no
chance of getting anyone upstream to ever adopt them
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Linda Messerschmidt wrote:
Hello,
We use Apache 1.3 on FreeBSD and for a long time, we have maintained our own
build process separate from the ports collection because we have some local
patches.
These are accounting patches, of interest
Linda Messerschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
We use Apache 1.3 on FreeBSD and for a long time, we have maintained our own
build process separate from the ports collection because we have some local
patches.
These are accounting patches, of interest to no one but us, so I have
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Greg Larkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would recommend setting up a local Tinderbox installation:
http://tinderbox.marcuscom.com/
Wow, it looks like a lot of work, but if we can finally build everything in
one place, with our local patches and then get
finally build everything in
one place, with our local patches and then get portupgrade -PP to work
reliably everywhere else, that would be worth the effort. I'll check it
out!
Thanks!
-LM
Hi Linda,
It may not be so much work for you, once I finish the pre-installed
Tinderbox VMware virtual
At 2008-09-09T15:12:48-04:00, Linda Messerschmidt wrote:
After our last upgrade to 7-STABLE (7.1-PRERELEASE) our local build process
started producing broken binaries but the port has patches and one of them
makes it work. So, this seems like a good time to replace our build process
Andreas Pettersson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does freebsd-update take care of all things mergemaster does?
Or can I use freebsd-update to apply security patches and still use
csup, make world and mergemaster to upgrade to a new release?
You certainly *can* use both
Does freebsd-update take care of all things mergemaster does?
Or can I use freebsd-update to apply security patches and still use
csup, make world and mergemaster to upgrade to a new release?
--
Andreas
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Hi,
It's still me.
I have read past posts about the patches available for the wpi intel3945abg
driver found at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~thompsa/wpi_releng7.diff
I see that it's a diff between the newest version and a version dated:2
february 2008.
The wpi drivers I have are from
Luca Presotto wrote:
...
Where can I find more updated drivers to which I can apply these patches?
Thank you!
The patches are for the RELENG_7 sources.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd
The patches are for the RELENG_7 sources.
I could figure that from the name.
Where can I find a list of which version are available and where?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
If I do a security update via freebsd-update, and it contains kernel
related binary patches. I am assuming I need to reboot. Is this correct?
Thanks,
Chris
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
Chris Maness wrote:
If I do a security update via freebsd-update, and it contains kernel
related binary patches. I am assuming I need to reboot. Is this correct?
Correct!
Peter
--
http://www.boosten.org
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
, re-bzip the sources, and then try to force an
upgrade, the checksum fails (as expected).
How does one do thes properly?
It's actually much easier than in Linux, since the ports system already
has to do this. Each port has a files directory into which you can put
patches, which will get
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:06:45 +
Matthew Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'portsnap extract' or 'portsnap update' will however blow away local
additions in the part of the ports tree it is operating on -- there
are clear warnings to that effect in the man page.
There are clear warnings
to that effect in the man page. chflags will preserve
your changes in this case, but my guess is that portsnap might well
abort in the middle of what it's doing if it runs into an immutable file.
It hasn't aborted on me yet. But these days I tend to keep my own
patches separately, and re-apply them
?
It's actually much easier than in Linux, since the ports system already
has to do this. Each port has a files directory into which you can put
patches, which will get applied automatically each time you build. See
the porter's handbook for details:
But wouldn't that personnal patch file be erased
an upgrade, the checksum fails (as expected).
How does one do thes properly?
It's actually much easier than in Linux, since the ports system
already has to do this. Each port has a files directory into which
you can put patches, which will get applied automatically each time
you
, the checksum fails (as expected).
How does one do thes properly?
It's actually much easier than in Linux, since the ports system already
has to do this. Each port has a files directory into which you can put
patches, which will get applied automatically each time you build. See
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:20:11 +
RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... Each port has a files directory into which
you can put patches, which will get applied automatically each time
you build. See the porter's handbook for details:
Wonderful!
That worked Thanks loads
Bob
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:19:55 +
Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks:
What is the approved method of applying personalised patches to ports
sources?
A current example, which was no problem under Linux, is giving me a
bit of a hassle under FreeBSD
I use pdftotext extensively
Hi folks:
What is the approved method of applying personalised patches to ports
sources?
A current example, which was no problem under Linux, is giving me a bit
of a hassle under FreeBSD
I use pdftotext extensively to translate pdf files to ascii text.
Sometimes, a publicly posted PDF file has
Hi,
Question about patch numbers and applying patches:
Last night, I got the openssl security advisory, and this morning am
starting to patch my servers.
I've always just done a make build world; make build kernel; make
install kernel; make install world when I've need to patch.
Today
Duane Winner wrote:
Hi,
Question about patch numbers and applying patches:
Last night, I got the openssl security advisory, and this morning am
starting to patch my servers.
I've always just done a make build world; make build kernel; make
install kernel; make install world when I've
.
Is there some place to send patches like this to to get to the package
maintainer?
--
Heiko Wundram
Product Application Development
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any
into the ports tree than to directly post it to upstream.
Is there some place to send patches like this to to get to the package
maintainer?
Try opening a problem report and include the patches as attachments.
The process of submitting problem ports and a useful mini-guide about
what is good
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: RE: patches for the 6.2-RELEASE
kernelDate: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:57:51 +
Pare de enviar e-mail pra mim...não te conheço, tá enchendo minha caixa.Parem ,
por favor !
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd-questions
.sendmail.asc
* FreeBSD-SA-06:16.smbfs.asc
* FreeBSD-SA-06:15.ypserv.asc
FreeBSD 5.5-RELEASE released.
Is that mean if I use 5.5-release I need to patch all the patches
above and
if I use 6.2-release I only need to patch SA-07:05 to SA-07:02 ?
Is that right?
I also learned from http
://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-06:16.smbfs.asc
-
FreeBSD-SA-06:15.ypserv.aschttp://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-06:15.ypserv.asc
FreeBSD 5.5-RELEASE released.
Is that mean if I use 5.5-release, I should apply all the patches above and
if I use 6.2-release I need only apply
Is that mean if I use 5.5-release, I should apply all the patches above and
if I use 6.2-release I need only apply the
FreeBSD-SA-07:05.libarchive.aschttp://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-07:05.libarchive.asc
to
FreeBSD-SA-07:02.bind.aschttp://security.freebsd.org/advisories
Le 28/06/2007 13:22:11+0200, Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez a écrit
Thank very much for your reply.
You'r welcome.
For the ports i use portsnap + portmanager. I am very comfortable with
this team and i get keep easily my ports up to date.
I think i understand the diference between stable
Le 26/06/2007 à 19:40:29+0200, Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez a écrit
Hi Folks.
I am FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE user. i'm learning FreeBSD.
Some times, i see people have a system named 6.2-RELEASE-pxx, where
xx is a number. I know that -pxx are security patches, or not only
security and too
know that -pxx are security patches, or not only
security and too are patches for solve bugs?.
My dude is: is very convenient have upgraded the kernel to this
patches. I'm a home user, not a bussiness. Nothing important
depend on my system.
My second dude is: how is the upgrade
Hi Folks.
I am FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE user. i'm learning FreeBSD.
Some times, i see people have a system named 6.2-RELEASE-pxx, where
xx is a number. I know that -pxx are security patches, or not only
security and too are patches for solve bugs?.
My dude is: is very convenient have upgraded
Hi Folks.
I am FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE user. i'm learning FreeBSD.
Some times, i see people have a system named 6.2-RELEASE-pxx, where
xx is a number. I know that -pxx are security patches, or not only
security and too are patches for solve bugs?.
My dude is: is very convenient have upgraded
Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez wrote:
Hi Folks.
I am FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE user. i'm learning FreeBSD.
Some times, i see people have a system named 6.2-RELEASE-pxx, where
xx is a number. I know that -pxx are security patches, or not only
security and too are patches for solve bugs?.
My
On Jun 26, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez wrote:
I am FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE user. i'm learning FreeBSD.
Some times, i see people have a system named 6.2-RELEASE-pxx, where
xx is a number. I know that -pxx are security patches, or not only
security and too are patches for solve bugs
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:03:05PM +0200, Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez wrote:
Hi Folks.
I am FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE user. i'm learning FreeBSD.
Some times, i see people have a system named 6.2-RELEASE-pxx, where
xx is a number. I know that -pxx are security patches, or not only
security
are security patches, or not only
security and too are patches for solve bugs?.
My dude is: is very convenient have upgraded the kernel to this
patches. I'm a home user, not a bussiness. Nothing important
depend on my system.
My second dude is: how is the upgrade process
STOP
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:33:27 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: patches for the 6.2-RELEASE
kernel On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:20:58 +0300 Manolis Kiagias [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote: Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez wrote: Hi Folks
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: RE: patches for the 6.2-RELEASE
kernelDate: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:57:51 +
Pare de enviar e-mail pra mim...não te conheço, tá enchendo minha caixa.Parem ,
por favor !
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd-questions
Guido Demmenie wrote:
I'm really glad the FreeBSD team brought freebsd-update(8) in the base
system. Now I can do my security patches with much less hassle. But i
have one question about this great tool.
When do I have to reboot?
If in doubt, reboot. While there are obvious cases (e.g
Op maandag 07 mei 2007, schreef Guido Demmenie:
I'm really glad the FreeBSD team brought freebsd-update(8) in the
base system. Now I can do my security patches with much less hassle.
But i have one question about this great tool.
When do I have to reboot?
I know that most of the time you
I'm really glad the FreeBSD team brought freebsd-update(8) in the
base system. Now I can do my security patches with much less hassle.
But i have one question about this great tool.
When do I have to reboot?
I know that most of the time you just restart a daemon and your
finished
I would like make a small modification to ntpd on my local system.
I'm running 6.2 RELEASE p4, and am updating that with csup with
*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_6_2
Is there a recommended way of maintaining my own personal patches?
(The patch is very unlikely to be of use
personal patches?
(The patch is very unlikely to be of use or recommended to anyone else).
Unless someone tells me of a better scheme, I'm going to put my
patches in
/usr/local/patches
and process them with
patch -d /usr/src
People usually use CVS to manage their sources, which
for my post. It seems to me that there would
need to be some simple ground rules from the binary patches I'm
got in mind. The *default* CFLAGS in the port would match those
in the patch is one place to start.
Obviously, this could get way out of hand very quickly. Two
Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading
foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by
downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting
/usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a
relatively small binary
Gary Kline schrieb:
Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading
foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by
downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting
/usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a
relatively small
Gary Kline wrote:
Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading
foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by
downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting
/usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a
relatively
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:20:00PM +, Vince wrote:
Gary Kline wrote:
Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading
foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by
downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting
/usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6
Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading
foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by
downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting
/usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a
relatively small binary
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading
foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by
downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting
/usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a
code (or data, rodata) will change. so diff will be big.
Is that a guess or did you actually test and verify this?
verified, but some time ago in linux, but i think it shouldn't make
difference
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
actually test and verify this?
Fabian
Well, this can be done by diffing two different copies of a similar binary.
Frankly, binary patches should be done thought IMHO because like Wojciech
mentioned the differences would be huge.
Besides, the patches aren't portable, so the program would have
Well, this can be done by diffing two different copies of a similar binary.
Frankly, binary patches should be done thought IMHO because like Wojciech
mentioned the differences would be huge.
actually i never user binary packages from freebsd site. this is no
problem to compile from source
that there would
need to be some simple ground rules from the binary patches I'm
got in mind. The *default* CFLAGS in the port would match those
in the patch is one place to start.
Obviously, this could get way out of hand very quickly. Two of
my slowest
will be big.
Is that a guess or did you actually test and verify this?
Fabian
Well, this can be done by diffing two different copies of a similar binary.
Frankly, binary patches should be done thought IMHO because like Wojciech
mentioned the differences would be huge.
Besides, the patches
of the reason for my post. It seems to me that there would
need to be some simple ground rules from the binary patches I'm
got in mind. The *default* CFLAGS in the port would match those
in the patch is one place to start.
Obviously, this could get way out of hand very
think.
You've brought up a lot of things I didn't consider; this was
part of the reason for my post. It seems to me that there would
need to be some simple ground rules from the binary patches I'm
got in mind. The *default* CFLAGS in the port would match those
On Thursday 15 March 2007 00:55, Beech Rintoul wrote:
snip
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. If you want to upgrade using packages only
use 'portupgrade -PP'. Bear in mind it
On Thursday 15 March 2007 03:13, Danny Pansters wrote:
I suspect that the build cluster is waiting for user input after failed
builds mostly ;-)
Before I get spanked for this, I know it's automated, what I meant to say is
that the build time only isn't the only time it all takes to get things
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
. Nowadays, this network traffic should
not be a real problem, I think.
You've brought up a lot of things I didn't consider; this was
part of the reason for my post. It seems to me that there would
need to be some simple ground rules from the binary patches I'm
got in mind
- Original Message -
From: Jerry McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Patches in FreeBSD
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:53:20AM -0800, Josh Carroll wrote:
My question is: How do I respond
in security update messages - but
didn't follow that path. Is that real? Does it cover kernel
things essentially on the fly or is a 'time consuming' rebuild
still needed?
I will look up some stuff on patches in FreeBSD, but would like to
hear some perspective on this.
Thanks,
jerry
My question is: How do I respond to this?
I have seen the word patch used in security update messages - but
didn't follow that path. Is that real? Does it cover kernel
things essentially on the fly or is a 'time consuming' rebuild
still needed?
6.2 now official supports binary patches via
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
