Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:28:56 +0300 From: Yuri GV <rainbreath@hotpop.com> To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Less messages to FreeBSD.org lists Message-ID: <opr2eayidvaaei1e@smtp.hotpop.com> In-Reply-To: <40152488.8070309@iconoplex.co.uk> References: <4013EA9D.6040808@cream.org> <20040125134151.M52260@mail.tacorp.net> <20040125185753.GA12995@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <40141B3D.9070901@cream.org> <20040125194721.GA28036@xor.obsecurity.org> <40143CC3.6010709@cream.org> <401514D3.7020808@iconoplex.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040126133123.0465b398@imap.sfu.ca> <40152488.8070309@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I just want to say that if we'd do it then let's download source code, not binaries. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that it still would be more Unix way of doing deals. Different peoples have different kernels compiled by themselves (like I do) and there is no guarantee that binary updates would not hang up a system. breath On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:30:32 +0000, Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> wrote: > Colin Percival wrote: > >> <oxford> It's *fewer* messages, not *less* messages! </oxford> > > > <manchester> I've just nicked your wallet you toff! </manchester> :-) > >> I'd say that a more useful option would be to add code which >> "pings" a server every day with a request for binary security >> updates. > > > Oooh.... now we're heading into the realms of Windows Update, and we > know how badly that can behave at times. As long as it was completely > optional, in fact something that sits in ports and not base, I'd think > that would work OK. The problem is, with so many builds out there on so > many platforms, linked with so many libraries, you can't just dispatch a > list of MD5s and know a particular item is "broken". >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?opr2eayidvaaei1e>