From nobody Mon Sep 9 14:37:40 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4X2TvT2XjRz5WY9h for ; Mon, 09 Sep 2024 14:37:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jan@digitaldaemon.com) Received: from digitaldaemon.com (digitaldaemon.com [162.217.114.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4X2TvT20Kvz4bHb for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:37:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jan@digitaldaemon.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: (qmail 52592 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2024 14:37:40 -0000 Received: from c-69-142-153-99.hsd1.nj.comcast.net (HELO ?10.0.0.22?) (jan@digitaldaemon.com@69.142.153.99) by digitaldaemon.com with SMTP; 9 Sep 2024 14:37:40 -0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 10:37:40 -0400 List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Binary updates (was Re: It's not Rust, it's FreeBSD (and LLVM)) To: Cy Schubert , Jamie Landeg-Jones Cc: void@f-m.fm, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org References: <202409031532.483FW0If007252@critter.freebsd.dk> <3845d980-7160-4819-82a4-db2281828c8c@app.fastmail.com> <202409090442.4894gGMb086473@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <20240909143239.8F285AF@slippy.cwsent.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Jan Knepper In-Reply-To: <20240909143239.8F285AF@slippy.cwsent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36236, ipnet:162.217.112.0/22, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4X2TvT20Kvz4bHb On 9/9/24 10:32, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message <202409090442.4894gGMb086473@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net>, > Jamie La > ndeg-Jones writes: >> void wrote: >> >>> ? really? All my -stable and -current machines are recompiled from source. >>> Is this really that rare? >> Mine too (well, I only track stable at the moment, and am only talking about >> 8 >> machines) >> >> I have too many local patches to easily do it any other way. As it is, i sync >> src, patches are automatically applied, then make buildworld etc... is all >> that's needed. >> >> Similar story for ports vs packages - too many patches (and custom options) > Those of us who build from source and build ports, whether manually or > through our own poudriere, are the minority. Just visit the FreeBSD forums. > I attend OpenHack here. People who do use FreeBSD use freebsd-update and > binary packages. (I use freebsd-update and binary packages on some VMs at > $JOB, while maintaining my own network at home as any developer does.) > > And that's a marketing feature of FreeBSD. Most users don't want he hassle > of building and installing an O/S. > > And a co-worker has set up an EC2 instance (thanks cpercival@). > > Out in the real world people use binary updates and binary packages. We > developers are an anomaly these days. > > Just because a few of us build from source doesn't mean the rest of the > world does. > > Probably... Used to compile on every instance of FreeBSD I run. Still do on many, but have moved to using freebsd-update on some. (Just learned Saturday that is is _not_ a good idea to try to update multiple classic jails in parallel (thus at the same time) with freebsd-update. )