Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 19:52:58 +0300 From: Anthony Pankov <anthony.pankov@yahoo.com> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> Cc: void@f-m.fm, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Binary updates (was Re: It's not Rust, it's FreeBSD (and LLVM)) Message-ID: <8410656229.20240909195258@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20240909143239.8F285AF@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <202409031532.483FW0If007252@critter.freebsd.dk> <3845d980-7160-4819-82a4-db2281828c8c@app.fastmail.com> <202409090442.4894gGMb086473@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <20240909143239.8F285AF@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Cy. You wrote: <overquoting deleted> > Those of us who build from source and build ports, whether manually or > through our own poudriere, are the minority. I think a proportion of FreeBSD audience who build from source vs use binary is directly correlated to years of experience. If a recent Windows update prevent users for doing something and there is a samba fix... But only for latest samba version which still not in ports collection... You have only one way: rebuild your production samba package with applied patch. Things goes smooth if your production package is locally builded, you use poudriere overlay with this patch to get the same samba version with the same dependencies matching those already in production. All other way are very painfull. Binary updaters vs source builders are splitted by the point when they hit such a things. Consequently, persistent user who prefer binary update inevitably become a source builder. In my humble opinion. -- Best regards, Anthony Pankov mailto:anthony.pankov@yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8410656229.20240909195258>