From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 26 13:31:42 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB2416A4B3 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bilver.wjv.com (user38.net339.fl.sprint-hsd.net [65.40.24.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B3C744028 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:31:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: from bilver.wjv.com (localhost.wjv.com [127.0.0.1]) by bilver.wjv.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8QKVcAM088075 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:31:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bv@bilver.wjv.com) Received: (from bv@localhost) by bilver.wjv.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id h8QKVcCA088074 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:31:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bv) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:31:37 -0400 From: Bill Vermillion To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030926203137.GA87408@wjv.com> References: <20030926190215.3525416A4C3@hub.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030926190215.3525416A4C3@hub.freebsd.org> Organization: W.J.Vermillion / Orlando - Winter Park ReplyTo: bv@wjv.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_MUTT version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) Subject: Re: FreeBSD patch question X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: bv@wjv.com List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:31:42 -0000 In the last exciting episode of the freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org saga on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 12:02 , freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org as heard to say: > ------------------------------ > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:52:32 +0200 > From: "Devon H. O'Dell" > Subject: Re: FreeBSD Patch question [Much deleted - wjv] > The handbook recommends that one drop into single user mode to > build the world. While this is certainly best practice, it is > by no means absolutely necessary. Can you point this out - I've just looke at the handbook and I do NOT find anything like that in there. I see installworld in single, but not buildworld. This is from the handbook - note that it >recomends< installworld in single - though on my remote machines I've not had that luxury. ======================================== Beginning with version 2.2.5 of FreeBSD (actually, it was first created on the FreeBSD-CURRENT branch, and then retrofitted to FreeBSD-STABLE midway between 2.2.2 and 2.2.5) the world target has been split in two: buildworld and installworld. As the names imply, buildworld builds a complete new tree under /usr/obj, and installworld installs this tree on the current machine. This is very useful for 2 reasons. First, it allows you to do the build safe in the knowledge that no components of your running system will be affected. The build is ``self hosted''. Because of this, you can safely run buildworld on a machine running in multi-user mode with no fear of ill-effects. It is still recommended that you run the installworld part in single user mode, though. Secondly, it allows you to use NFS mounts to upgrade multiple machines on your network. If you have three machines, A, B and C that you want to upgrade, run make buildworld and make installworld on A. B and C should then NFS mount /usr/src and /usr/obj from A, and you can then run make installworld to install the results of the build on B and C. Although the world target still exists, you are strongly encouraged not to use it. ======================================== > End of freebsd-security Digest, Vol 27, Issue 4 Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com