From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 26 10:32:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BB616A4CE for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from twix.hotpop.com (twix.hotpop.com [38.113.3.71]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98E043D2D for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:32:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rainbreath@hotpop.com) Received: from hotpop.com (kubrick.hotpop.com [38.113.3.103]) by twix.hotpop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 47113C2CD01 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [82.151.127.252]) by smtp-1.hotpop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761B91A012D for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:28:56 +0300 To: chat@freebsd.org 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> From: Yuri GV Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <40152488.8070309@iconoplex.co.uk> User-Agent: Opera7.23/FreeBSD M2 build 518 X-HotPOP: ----------------------------------------------- Sent By HotPOP.com FREE Email Get your FREE POP email at www.HotPOP.com ----------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Less messages to FreeBSD.org lists X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:32:08 -0000 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 wrote: > Colin Percival wrote: > >> It's *fewer* messages, not *less* messages! > > > I've just nicked your wallet you toff! :-) > >> 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". >