Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:00:28 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: wc.bulte@chello.nl Cc: <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Patchkits: Was :Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility Message-ID: <00042513002803.32593@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <20000425194233.A816@yedi.wbnet> References: <39056A21.C58ED54A@originative.co.uk> <Pine.BSF.4.20.0004251739190.92416-100000@mx.webgiro.com> <20000425194233.A816@yedi.wbnet>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > On a similar note: I think one of serious drawbacks of FreeBSD's model > > for updating and bugfixing the stable branch is 'make world'. It's very > > inefficient and cumbersome way to do this on production machines. STABLE > > is stable enough for us to be able to prepare binary patches, which can > > be applied to a system in some (known) version. > Question: are MD5 checksums the same for each and every > build (assuming static sources obviously) or is there some timestamp (or > something like that) in the generated binary. If there is, one could only > create binary patches relative to a -release. Here your logic is wrong. When I make a binary patch, I don't HAVE to update anything that is not substantively changed. Think "make all" rather than "make world". From there, it is easy enough to generate a chain of patches just like CTM does for the sources. However, is it worth the effort? I don't know. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00042513002803.32593>