Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:52:29 +0100 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru>, Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rsync vs installworld Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20031020104723.02c5a420@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <20031020134059.K36677@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <20031020061931.GE57130@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20031019190036.3426D16A4D7@hub.freebsd.org> <20031020061931.GE57130@straylight.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 13:42 20/10/2003 +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: >Nope, because: >- security/freebsd-update does not handle ports at all >- it is only for security branches and so does not fit in the case of locally >patched system Local patches aren't a problem, actually -- regardless of what I may advertise, FreeBSD Update doesn't really track the security branches either: It tracks "release branches plus some local fixup patches" (the only user-visible change is that kernels are labeled as -SECURITY intead of -RELEASEpx). Of course, you'd need to build your own updates if you're doing this, but the code is all online and (reasonably) straightforward. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.1.20031020104723.02c5a420>