Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:01:16 -0800 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>, current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006) Message-ID: <20051222210116.GG39174@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051218171308.GA20557@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <20051217220021.GB93998@svcolo.com> <43A4A557.3010600@mac.com> <43A53215.8090001@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20051218171308.GA20557@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:55:33AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > Doesn't creating a binary updates system that's going to be practical to use > > require implementation of that old and exceedingly bikesheddable subject: > > packaging > > up the base system? On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:13:09PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > No, after all the *existing* binary update systems don't require > packaging of the base system. None of which work properly in production environments. They work fine for home computers running GENERIC, and who can sustain some downtime for upgrade failures. And they are all completely un-auditable. -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051222210116.GG39174>