On 22. des. 2005, at 22.17, 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 Modified files cannot be patched, period. No matter what system you are on. A nice user-experience of backing up the modified file and reinstalling the default could be added on top to resemble other systems, but it would not solve your problem. What you are looking for is enough run-time knobs and a stable ABI layer for third party drivers so the need for compiling your own kernel disappears. > 3. FreeBSD Update can't handle updates of jails and other > situations that > package systems deal with just fine. freebsd-update -b /usr/jail/foo ? From the manual: Act on a FreeBSD world based at the directory basedir. This is suitable for updating jails, but note that the usual rules about updating locally modified (or compiled) files apply, and the jail must belong to the same release version as the run- ning kernel. Frode Nordahl frode_at_nordahl.netReceived on Wed Jan 18 2006 - 21:09:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:51 UTC