Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:45:44 +0100 From: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When is BuildWorld necessary? Message-ID: <200609162245.46615.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <200609161634.27501.bob@tania.servebbs.org> References: <200609161541.38002.bob@tania.servebbs.org> <200609162113.41283.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <200609161634.27501.bob@tania.servebbs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 16 September 2006 21:34, Bob wrote: > 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. In FreeBSD the most conservative approach is to rebuild both world and kernel, they are more of a "matched pair" than in Linux. Since I don't bother to drop into single-user mode, or do the extra reboot for point releases, I just run a single script that does the whole thing (including cvsup), then reboot at my convenience. Having said that, I know some people that run STABLE will just rebuild individual parts of world. IMHO this is a lot more hassle than typing the name of a script, and letting the hardware take the strain.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609162245.46615.list-freebsd-2004>