From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 16:08:08 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EC816A400 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:08:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gabor@FreeBSD.org) Received: from server.t-hosting.hu (server.t-hosting.hu [217.20.133.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB7613C44B for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:08:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gabor@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.t-hosting.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2939F1190; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:08:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at t-hosting.hu Received: from server.t-hosting.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server.t-hosting.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2luXyXbHczOn; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:07:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.2.186] (catv-50635cb6.catv.broadband.hu [80.99.92.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server.t-hosting.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56849F1178; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:07:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45F81DCF.6050309@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:07:43 +0100 From: Gabor Kovesdan User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Kline References: <20070314155326.GA23363@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <20070314155326.GA23363@thought.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: binary patches? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:08:08 -0000 Gary Kline schrieb: > Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading > foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by > downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting > /usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a > relatively small binary patch? Seems to me that smaller scale > upgrades could be done this way in preference to re-compiling > ports or downloading entire pacakes. --Same would go for any > dependencies. > > Why is this a bad idea! > > gary > The final form of actual binaries depend on a lot of things, e.g. which version of dependency you compiled with, which CFLAGS you have used, what options the port you built it. Some of these applies to packages as well, that's why I prefer ports over packages at all. E.g. let's see lang/php5. It does not have the apache module enabled by default. If it were, then the problem comes up with Apache versions. IIRC, 2.2 is the default now, but what if you use 2.0? How would you install php for your apache version from package? The situtation has been already pretty complicated with packages if you have higher needs for fine tuning, but you can use them if you don't have special needs. Binary diffs would be so complicated that I think this way we could really not follow. If you need simplicity at all, use portupgrade with packages. It has an option (don't remember which one) you can use to make it fetch packages instead of building from source. Nowadays, this network traffic should not be a real problem, I think. Regards, Gabor