Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:10:53 +0000 From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com>, stable@freebsd.org, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>, current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006) Message-ID: <20051219131053.GA47692@uk.tiscali.com> In-Reply-To: <20051218171308.GA20557@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <20051217220021.GB93998@svcolo.com> <43A4A557.3010600@mac.com> <43A53215.8090001@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20051218171308.GA20557@xor.obsecurity.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:13:09PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > Doesn't creating a binary updates system that's going to be practical to use > > require implementation of that old and exceedingly bikesheddable subject: > > packaging > > up the base system? > > No, after all the *existing* binary update systems don't require > packaging of the base system. Except that the existing binary update system is broken in several fundamental ways. I guess the reason it gets little attention is because most developers are happy to (or even prefer to) rebuild their systems from source. Regards, Brian.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051219131053.GA47692>