Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:23:53 -0600 From: Ted Spradley <tsprad@set.spradley.tmi.net> To: Drew Derbyshire - UUPC/extended software support <software@kew.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: after the release ... Message-ID: <E0yG5WL-0001KR-00@set.spradley.tmi.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:51:31 EST." <35127463.6ACB464@kew.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I neither a CVS expert nor directing FreeBSD release policy. I'm only > pointing out a failure in the FreeBSD release cycle, as Jordan pointed out HP > and Sun have bugs, but THEY have a packaged patch process. FreeBSD does not, > it only has "upgrade to the next release" or hand patch any fixes into the > source and rebuild. I take exception to the word 'hand' here. You really ought to try to learn a bit about make and cvs. IMHO, those are two of the most useful things a computer can do (but they're not graphical, not even interactive, so they're completely out of fashion (don't *start*, Ted)). And they're not just for programmers. > Adding such a patch function seems to be an issue of > packaging a limited number of critical changes (in 2.2.5 for example, it would > have been the lpd and the security fixes) into a package. Under System V, it > would be pkgadd. Under FreeBSD the best method seems to be ports. I presume you mean a *binary* patch here. What's the big advantage of binary over source? You don't have to pay extra for the compiler. I suppose the binary patch would run faster, but the computer does the work, not you, so why do you care? The source patch is more likely to get it right, and if it doesn't, you've got a tiny chance to fix it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0yG5WL-0001KR-00>