Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:54:18 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-14:31.ntp In-Reply-To: <8661cy9jim.fsf@nine.des.no> References: <20141223233310.098C54BB6@nine.des.no> <86h9wln9nw.fsf@nine.des.no> <549A5492.6000503@grosbein.net> <868uhx43i5.fsf@nine.des.no> <20141226200838.DE83DACE@hub.freebsd.org> <8661cy9jim.fsf@nine.des.no>
| previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> writes: >> ... or those with constrained resources are never going to be able >> to make/build/installworld for something as simple as a single binary >> update. > > These sites would be better served using freebsd-update to download and > apply binary patches. Was afraid you might say that, not because it's unreasonable or inevitable but because it illustrates the increasing tendency to refer bug (and other) reports to use binary updates. Problem with freebsd-update is that it has some of the same scope issues as installworld. We've also had problems defining "-r" (in a jail) when the booted kernel is not the revision we want to build to. Doesn't help that "-r" doesn't parse patch levels. freebsd-update also calls phttpget which has no man page. This is one Linux-ism (missing man pages) that FreeBSD is usually good at avoiding. > I would suggest discussing this with the FreeBSD Foundation. They have > already taken an interest in the matter. Thanks Dag, Roger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?>