Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:36:11 +1030 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com>, stable@freebsd.org, current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 ) Message-ID: <200512231136.12471.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20051222221202.GM39174@svcolo.com> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <43AB1E65.2030501@mac.com> <20051222221202.GM39174@svcolo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:42, Jo Rhett wrote: > > Using a build server as a testbed and to generate new packages or even a > > new kernel + world will reduce the amount of work required, but FreeBSD > > does require some level of administration and maintenance. > > We already have that. But again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say > here. The centralized server makes patching and port upgrades easier. It > does _NOTHING_ for core OS upgrades because there is no supported mechanism > for doing binary upgrades except from the ISO. Thus, we are finally back > on topic. Uhh.. On your central PC.. buildworld once. builkernel once for each of the different kernels you are using. On each 'client' PC.. NFS mount /usr/src and /usr/obj installkernel reboot installworld Sure there are no tools to automagically do this, but I don't believe core would say "no, we will never support this". > I have made suggestions. Everyone has made suggestions. Most of us have > produced code to work around the problem, but the core OS team has always > refused to support or acknowledge these efforts. You are putting words in the mouth of core@ - I find it very hard to believe that core would suggest someone NOT implement a good framework for doing full binary upgrades via the network. Unless you mean "core@ said they would not support packaging the base" which is different. > For binary upgrades without booting from CD-ROM to be possible, we need > versioning of some sort at the OS level. Core OS packages are the most This is not true - I don't see it as being mandatory to be able to apply binary updates. (Case in point - freebsd-update works fine without it) > popular suggestion, but not the only path. Every year this topic comes up > and gets struck down again. Yes, because a) it isn't necessary, b) it may not solve the problem, c) there are no patches to evaluate. I think the people suggesting it see it as a panacea to fix their problems but haven't fully evaluated it. -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBDq02E5ZPcIHs/zowRAn5GAJ97pxuA0nXeDa5va0P84gbIcOf/hQCdEdG6 s5bEFdO5ykUVmWsYsPRT0yo= =DCOf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200512231136.12471.doconnor>