On 1/17/07, Patrick Useldinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for your explanations. Now I'm wondering why FreeBSD maintains
the "upgrade from source" approach, but that's for a different list
(yes, I read that in FreeBSD 6.2 you can do binary upgrades now - but
actually I am not interested in
Joachim Schipper wrote:
For instance, OpenBSD 4.0 introduced a warning for large stacks, and 4.0
kernels are compiled with this option. Compiling a pre-4.0 -current on
3.9 is thus impossible.
That's indeed a good example. While there's probably a way around it by
upgrading in several steps, i
Patrick Useldinger([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2007.01.17 18:34:35 +:
> Nick Holland wrote:
> >Verifying the
> >dependencies for every combination of "core packages" would be
> >difficult...and pointless.
>
> Well I think that's feasible, it the package manager manages
> dependencies and the depend
Nick Holland wrote:
I think you were confusing UPGRADE and UPDATE there someplace.
No, I updated 3.9-release to 3.9-stable.
Remove (or don't install) Sendmail... Boom, your daily reports are
now non-functional. There are other ways you could get the same info,
but none of them quite as sim
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> Nick Holland wrote:
>
>> UpGRADING (changing functionality, changing version numbers) from source
>> is HARD. Having thousands of people thinking they should be able to
>> build a new version from some arbitrary old version by source is a
>> leading cause of developer
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> Nick Holland wrote:
>
>> UpGRADING (changing functionality, changing version numbers) from source
>> is HARD. Having thousands of people thinking they should be able to
>> build a new version from some arbitrary old version by source is a
>> leading cause of developer h
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 06:30:04PM +0100, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> Nick Holland wrote:
>
> >UpGRADING (changing functionality, changing version numbers) from source
> >is HARD. Having thousands of people thinking they should be able to
> >build a new version from some arbitrary old version by
Hey Patrick,
> Why is is hard? If I pull the complete sources from cvs, so that every
> file used in the Makefiles is present and up to date, the build process
> would be just as trivial I assume. In what case would this _not_ be
> true?
Read some of:
http://openbsd.unixtech.be/faq/current.html
Nick Holland wrote:
UpGRADING (changing functionality, changing version numbers) from source
is HARD. Having thousands of people thinking they should be able to
build a new version from some arbitrary old version by source is a
leading cause of developer hair loss, and helping those people woul
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
...
> I thought that the rationale for using binaries was security:
That is incorrect.
The reason for using binaries is sanity of the developers.
UpGRADING (changing functionality, changing version numbers) from source
is HARD. Having thousands of people thinking they s
On 1/15/07, Patrick Useldinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My understanding is that OpenBSD version updates can only be done with
binaries. Likewise, for additional application installation, packages
i.e. binaries are favored over ports i.e. compiling from source.
Version up_grades_ (one releas
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 08:58:58PM +0100, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> So I guess I am missing something decisive here. Can anybody shed some
> light on _why_ there are 2 different ways to update?
It might help to think about it as the process for keeping up with
-stable being identical to the pro
Hi,
I expected that this question had come up many times before but I didn't
find anything in the archives, so here I go.
My understanding is that OpenBSD version updates can only be done with
binaries. Likewise, for additional application installation, packages
i.e. binaries are favored ove
13 matches
Mail list logo
