Hi guys,
I'm currently working on binary updates for DragonFly. The main
purpose is for security and other little fixes. Binary updates are
very handy if you have a lot of remote machines and can just type
something like fetch_updates install_updates and you get the latest
fixes
[Just some comments, not meant to shoot you down]
Matthias Schmidt wrote:
bspatch/bsdiff
To use the client and the server tool you have to install Colin
Percivals bsdiff/bspatch tools at first. I have a version ready for
DragonFly here:
should probably be placed in pkgsrc.
Design and
Hi Simon,
* Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
[Just some comments, not meant to shoot you down]
No problem :)
Matthias Schmidt wrote:
/etc/named/etc/named is linked to .. so the tool got stuck in an
endless loop. Removing the link temporary fixed that problem :)
You shouldn't recurse
Matthias Schmidt wrote:
I wonder, why bother with binary patches? Network is cheap nowadays, so
we could as well distribute complete binaries.
Thats right, but I'm a fan of saving disk space and bandwith. Distributing
complete binaries has one big advantage. We could update user-modified
Alex Neundorf wrote:
As soon as you compile stuff, you probably will get different binaries.
If you update the kernel, you need to update the userland as well.
If we had a way to identify from which sources a binary was compiled
from, we could do upgrades more easily. Maybe enhance gcc to
He,
* Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Matthias Schmidt wrote:
Thats right, but I'm a fan of saving disk space and bandwith. Distributing
complete binaries has one big advantage. We could update user-modified
binary files which is not easily possible with diff/pach.
Yes. Both ways
Matthias Schmidt wrote:
Do you mean with or without patching?
That would be without patching. A way to find out which sources a
particular binary corresponds to, and if these sources are the same like
the ones being upgraded, you can replace the (different) binary with a
fixed replacement.
On 2007-12-16 14:58, Matthias Schmidt wrote:
He,
* Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Matthias Schmidt wrote:
Thats right, but I'm a fan of saving disk space and bandwith. Distributing
complete binaries has one big advantage. We could update user-modified
binary files which is not
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:30:26 +0100
Alex Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/16/07, Simon 'corecode' Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As soon as you compile stuff, you probably will get different binaries.
If you update the kernel, you need to update the userland as well.
If we had a
* Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
Perhaps this is overkill, one simplification would be to assume
that the binary patches are only for systems installed from official ISOs
and so the binary update will take you from (say) 1.10.1 to 1.10.2 and will
complain if the file being patched does not
Hi,
* Erik Wikstrm wrote:
I would expect that if a user have some kind of modified binaries that
is because they like it that way. To have an update-program replace
those binaries with standard binaries might not be desirable at all.
On the other hand, I would suspect that those user are
11 matches
Mail list logo
