On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:47, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > > FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the > > actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If > > the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not distributed from the > > FreeBSD.org domain, then a) that's a silly argument, and b) it's easily > > solvable so long as Colin agrees. > > But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been > describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS. > > 1. modified kernels are foobar > ..yet are practically mandatory on production systems > > 2. modified sources are foobar > ..yet many common production situations require source compilation > options How do you expect these two to be handled in a binary upgrade? I can't see how it's possible.. I don't think integrating it with the core OS (whatever that means) will magically fix this. > 3. FreeBSD Update can't handle updates of jails and other situations that > package systems deal with just fine. Not having run jails I am not very qualified to comment, however, I don't see why you can't just run freebsd update inside your jail(s). If you mean that it would be good if you could automatically upgrade a large number of jails and rebuild link farms etc etc.. well sure that isn't supported, but it is a very difficult problem to solve (I believe). -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:49 UTC