Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:33:32 -0800 From: Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org> To: Vince <jhary@unsane.co.uk> Cc: Gary Kline <kline@tao.thought.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: binary patches? Message-ID: <20070314163332.GB46558@thought.org> In-Reply-To: <45F820B0.8030204@unsane.co.uk> References: <20070314155326.GA23363@thought.org> <45F820B0.8030204@unsane.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:20:00PM +0000, Vince wrote: > Gary Kline wrote: > > Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading > > foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by > > downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting > > /usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a > > relatively small binary patch? Seems to me that smaller scale > > upgrades could be done this way in preference to re-compiling > > ports or downloading entire pacakes. --Same would go for any > > dependencies. > > > > Why is this a bad idea! > > > > gary > portsnap works on this basis as does freebsd-update, see > http://www.daemonology.net/freebsd-update/ > I can imagine it could get horribly complex, but using > http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/ i guess its potentially possible. > Colin Percival would be a good person to talk to if you're thinking of > implementing this, since he wrote the tools referenced above. I'm just starting to use portsnap over cvsup ports*; looking for better docs on keeping (reasonably) current. Thanks for the URL's. --This could get severely complicated if there were no ground rules. OTOH, there's got to be a better way. --Well, hopefully! gary > > > Vince -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org www.thought.org Public Service Unix
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070314163332.GB46558>