Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:34:26 -0400 From: Bob <bob@tania.servebbs.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When is BuildWorld necessary? Message-ID: <200609161634.27501.bob@tania.servebbs.org> In-Reply-To: <200609162113.41283.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <200609161541.38002.bob@tania.servebbs.org> <200609162113.41283.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 16 September 2006 16:13, RW wrote: > Not all of the point releases are for the kernel, for example > 6.1-RELEASE-p2 was a sendmail fix. > Ok I see; just because my kernel is at p6, doesn't mean the base system is. I wasn't on FreeBSD when p2 was released. Would that p2 have triggered a portaudit warning? Assuming of course that p2 was a security related sendmail patch. What I am getting at is if, my sendmail were acting up, I would look for an update, and patch sendmail only. If the patch were security related I would patch it anyway, but I can't see why I would want to rebuild the entire system for a sendmail upgrade, or a kernel stability patch, when the individual broken/insecure pieces can be fixed with much less hassel, time, and risk. Is my logic flawed? Bob
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609161634.27501.bob>