From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 23:55:44 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D2916A401 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:55:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from beech@alaskaparadise.com) Received: from stargate.alaskaparadise.com (7-137-58-66.gci.net [66.58.137.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A76613C480 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:55:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from beech@alaskaparadise.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stargate.alaskaparadise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F807DA1; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:55:42 -0800 (AKDT) From: Beech Rintoul Organization: FreeBSD Port Maintainer To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:55:15 -0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <20070314155326.GA23363@thought.org> <45F81DCF.6050309@FreeBSD.org> <20070314230041.GA96282@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <20070314230041.GA96282@thought.org> X-Face: jC2w\k*Q1\0DA2Q0Eh&BrP/Rt2M,^2O#R07VoT98m*>miQF9%Bi9vy`F6cPjwEe?m,)=?utf-8?q?2=0A=09X=3FM=5C=3AOE9QgZ?="xT3/n3,3MJ7N=Cfkmi%f(w^~X"SUxn>; 27NO; C+)g[7J`$G*SN>{<=?utf-8?q?O=3Bg7=7C=0A=09o=7D=265A=5D4?=@7D`=Eb@Zs1Ln814?]|k@'bG=.Ca"[|8+_.OsNAo8!#?4u MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2087597.t8U6J7WO62"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200703141555.36585.beech@alaskaparadise.com> Cc: Gary Kline , Gabor Kovesdan Subject: Re: binary patches? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: beech@alaskaparadise.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:55:44 -0000 --nextPart2087597.t8U6J7WO62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:00, Gary Kline said: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:07:43PM +0100, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > > Gary Kline schrieb: > > > Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading > > > foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by > > > downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting > > > /usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a > > > relatively small binary patch? Seems to me that smaller scale > > > upgrades could be done this way in preference to re-compiling > > > ports or downloading entire pacakes. --Same would go for any > > > dependencies. > > > > > > Why is this a bad idea! > > > > > > gary > > > > The final form of actual binaries depend on a lot of things, e.g. > > which version of dependency you compiled with, which CFLAGS you > > have used, what options the port you built it. Some of these > > applies to packages as well, that's why I prefer ports over > > packages at all. E.g. let's see lang/php5. It does not have the > > apache module enabled by default. If it were, then the problem > > comes up with Apache versions. IIRC, 2.2 is the default now, but > > what if you use 2.0? How would you install php for your apache > > version from package? The situtation has been already pretty > > complicated with packages if you have higher needs for fine > > tuning, but you can use them if you don't have special needs. > > Binary diffs would be so complicated that I think this way we > > could really not follow. > > > > If you need simplicity at all, use portupgrade with packages. It > > has an option (don't remember which one) you can use to make it > > fetch packages instead of building from source. Nowadays, this > > network traffic should not be a real problem, I think. > > You've brought up a lot of things I didn't consider; this was > part of the reason for my post. It seems to me that there would > need to be some simple ground rules from the binary patches I'm > got in mind. The *default* CFLAGS in the port would match those > in the patch is one place to start. > > Obviously, this could get way out of hand very quickly. Two of > my slowest servers (one 400MHz, 192M RAM) were rebuilding parts > of the KDE suite; the new kdelib-3.5.6 [??] just finished and I > already scp'd it over to my more beefy platform. Once I've got > all my servers up to date, it may not be that hard to keep them > current. You're right that bandwidth isn't a problem--um, in > most places {{ clearing my throat! }}. Bandwidth isn't the main > issue. It's time. > > cheers! > > gary > > > Regards, > > Gabor This issue comes up about every six months. If you google the mailing=20 list you will find extensive discussion about why binary upgrades are=20 a bad idea. If you want to upgrade using packages only=20 use 'portupgrade -PP'. Bear in mind it takes the package build=20 cluster a couple of weeks to catch up. For security reasons we=20 (maintainers) don't build packages and building binaries for every=20 possible configuration would place an extreme load on the build=20 cluster (not to mention the space required to host them all). Beech =2D-=20 =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- Beech Rintoul - Port Maintainer - beech@alaskaparadise.com /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://www.freebsd.org X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release: / \ - http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.2R/announce.html =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- --nextPart2087597.t8U6J7WO62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBF+Itpp5D0B1NlT4URAo9XAJ9uGWTwwvNzU+s/xeRyOfQp2eaUuACePNMz yNe65Aw1dxvlgsB/i+KIH8w= =mqtc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2087597.t8U6J7WO62--