Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:22:39 +0100 (CET) From: "Cordula's Web" <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: vahric@doruk.net.tr Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: last question about up-to-date ( I hope ) Message-ID: <200312112122.hBBLMdo7074377@fw.farid-hajji.net> In-Reply-To: <045e01c3c02b$d7402da0$019c9752@xp> (vahric@doruk.net.tr) References: <045e01c3c02b$d7402da0$019c9752@xp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm just wonder Why patching is not used instead of source update.. > it's patching source tree too for security bugs ... I checking output of the > cvsup -g -L 2 stable-supfile command . it's only download openssh , bind and > like this almost what writen in security advisories . Personally, I prefer to have the current sources on the machine, so I can examine security breaches etc... But the main advantage is that downloading source diffs requires much less bandwidth than, say, newly compiled binaries. Tracking -STABLE or -CURRENT with cvsup via a 56k modem line is a viable option. I wouldn't like to download big binaries everytime a small patch fixes something. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200312112122.hBBLMdo7074377>