Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:14:53 +0200 From: "Vahric MUHTARYAN" <vahric@doruk.net.tr> To: "FreeBSD questions List" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: last question about up-to-date ( I hope ) Message-ID: <045e01c3c02b$d7402da0$019c9752@xp>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi ,
For keep up to date FreeBSD I think all people are using source update
method ( When I sent a message to list almost everybody adviced this ) Only
one person said that binary update but this is not recommanded because
compiled version always work better and I saw that compile update program is
not working quickly because Colin Percival waiting lest version ....
I'm just wonder Why patching is not used instead of source update..
it's patching source tree too for security bugs ... I checking output of the
cvsup -g -L 2 stable-supfile command . it's only download openssh , bind and
like this almost what writen in security advisories .
if you said soruce-update method more then security update Thats Okey .
But I want to know or understand if I don't want to use new features and
only interest with security updates ( patch updates ) Why patches does not
enough ?!
Vahric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?045e01c3c02b$d7402da0$019c9752>