From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 16 20:35:05 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09AFF16A415 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:35:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bob@tania.servebbs.org) Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2F643D5D for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:35:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bob@tania.servebbs.org) Received: from mailspool3.panix.com (mailspool3.panix.com [166.84.1.78]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18299D846 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tania.servebbs.org (pool-71-247-66-166.nycmny.east.verizon.net [71.247.66.166]) by mailspool3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2268B66943 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:35:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Bob Organization: TamaraB To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:34:26 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200609161541.38002.bob@tania.servebbs.org> <200609162113.41283.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <200609162113.41283.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200609161634.27501.bob@tania.servebbs.org> Subject: Re: When is BuildWorld necessary? 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: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:35:05 -0000 On Saturday 16 September 2006 16:13, RW wrote: > Not all of the point releases are for the kernel, for example > 6.1-RELEASE-p2 was a sendmail fix. > Ok I see; just because my kernel is at p6, doesn't mean the base system is. I wasn't on FreeBSD when p2 was released. Would that p2 have triggered a portaudit warning? Assuming of course that p2 was a security related sendmail patch. What I am getting at is if, my sendmail were acting up, I would look for an update, and patch sendmail only. If the patch were security related I would patch it anyway, but I can't see why I would want to rebuild the entire system for a sendmail upgrade, or a kernel stability patch, when the individual broken/insecure pieces can be fixed with much less hassel, time, and risk. Is my logic flawed? Bob