From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Mar 23 10:31:03 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370AFF5D285 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 482254ac@razorfever.net) Received: from pmta21.teksavvy.com (pmta21.teksavvy.com [76.10.157.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "*.teksavvy.com", Issuer "DigiCert SHA2 High Assurance Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFC3A6BF9C for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:31:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 482254ac@razorfever.net) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2G6BQDV1rRa/0StpUVdGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYIIgTVkbSiDXIhejDABRAYGgSMxAV+SSoIGC4UFAoNlIjUXAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQECA2gohSYBAQEBAgEjDwEFHiMFCwsYAgImAgI5HgYNBgIBAReEZgUIq?= =?us-ascii?q?QCCIIRYg2mCGhN1hCeDHYEIgS6CMDSEXYMXglQDkEiGcwcBAo4ngTWDVoIqD4R?= =?us-ascii?q?5hyWIQgyBJR0BN4FSH1yDB5BrIzCQVQEB?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2G6BQDV1rRa/0StpUVdGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYI?= =?us-ascii?q?IgTVkbSiDXIhejDABRAYGgSMxAV+SSoIGC4UFAoNlIjUXAQIBAQEBAQECA2goh?= =?us-ascii?q?SYBAQEBAgEjDwEFHiMFCwsYAgImAgI5HgYNBgIBAReEZgUIqQCCIIRYg2mCGhN?= =?us-ascii?q?1hCeDHYEIgS6CMDSEXYMXglQDkEiGcwcBAo4ngTWDVoIqD4R5hyWIQgyBJR0BN?= =?us-ascii?q?4FSH1yDB5BrIzCQVQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,349,1517893200"; d="scan'208";a="25058287" Received: from 69-165-173-68.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO mail.razorfever.net) ([69.165.173.68]) by smtp.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Mar 2018 06:30:55 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mail.razorfever.net [192.168.0.4]) by mail.razorfever.net (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTP id w2NAUsG7034325; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:30:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from 482254ac@razorfever.net) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.razorfever.net: Host mail.razorfever.net [192.168.0.4] claimed to be [127.0.0.1] Subject: Re: freebsd-update: to a specific patch level - help please? [PATCH] To: Rainer Duffner Cc: FreeBSD Current References: From: "Derek (freebsd lists)" <482254ac@razorfever.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:30:54 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on mail.razorfever.net X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:31:03 -0000 On 18-03-21 05:24 PM, Rainer Duffner wrote: >> Am 21.03.2018 um 22:12 schrieb Derek (freebsd lists) <482254ac@razorfever.net>: >> >> Hi! >> >> I was surprised when using freebsd-update, that there was no way to specify a patch level. > > AFAIK, the usual answer to these kinds of requests is: „Run your own freebsd-update server“. > > Mirroring one of the existing ones is AFAIK neither guaranteed to work nor desired by the current „administration“. > Thanks for your thoughts. To be clear, *I've included a link to a patch to freebsd-update in my initial post, and the help I'm looking for: is to get this functionality added as a feature so others can benefit.* It works for me already, and I've already benefited. (I'm happy to flesh it out, and document it properly, but I'm very hesitant to spend the time doing it in detail and submitting a PR if I'm doing this in isolation, and nobody wants it. Perhaps the silence on the thread is already a good indicator of the appetite, although I fear it's my ability to sell it or myself properly.) Structurally, "run your own freebsd-update server" is a wasteful solution for a single (or much larger set of) default install(s). It makes a lot of sense for custom installations. For what should be the default approach: repeatable - version controlled - installations with the support of the FreeBSD project, it would seem that having freebsd-update support patch levels would be a far more efficient net use of people's time than the alternatives. (I was debating both running an update server, or running "behind" a hacked up mirror as well, and in fact, I feel patching freebsd-update was a great investment, for n=1.) > It’s also a somewhat transient problem now because - AFAIK - FreeBSD will see packaged base and you can probably mirror those packages and snapshot the directory at any point in time. > And/Or it’s just easier to create these base-packages yourselves vs. running your own freebsd-update server. > This is a good point, and perhaps why it's not worth putting more time into this. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Derek