Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:31:40 +1000 (EST) From: jason andrade <jason@rtfmconsult.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd 5.3-release and some observations Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411180925420.29442@luna.rtfmconsult.com> In-Reply-To: <20041117232407.GA80979@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411171512011.29442@luna.rtfmconsult.com> <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411180622020.29442@luna.rtfmconsult.com> <20041117232407.GA80979@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: > No, they're tied to the release. Often most packages will work, but > not all, and not always. The point of keeping package sets for the > releases are because they've undergone QA during the release, and > users know they'll always work. Note that the release trees are > static, so they're a once-only download. yes, and that's a good current goal. i just wanted to raise the idea on whether this continues into the future (e.g FreeBSD6). > > In theory, you can always prioritise your updates so that e.g. i386 is > always synced when it changes, but ia64 is not synced more than once a > month. I don't know how easy this would be to do automatically on the > mirror end, or if more infrastructure support would be needed, but > that's out of my area. ideally this is achieved by not rebuilding some of the architectures at the same rate and then it's automatic, you don't update and i won't have to fetch :-) yes, this is a good idea and something that i imagine a number of us have been doing informally - i will work to try to codify this into the mirror documentation so people know. i suspect i386 weekly and everything else monthly would work. regards, -jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.60.0411180925420.29442>