Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:12:21 +0100 From: Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: binary patches? Message-ID: <20070314201221.3503c338@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20070314194527.W13133@chylonia.3miasto.net> References: <20070314155326.GA23363@thought.org> <20070314194527.W13133@chylonia.3miasto.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_ISNkNvkudscLV8GYnqbc0nY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.gdynia.pl> 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! > > > because if you change say 5 lines in program source of 1MB binary=20 > program, resulting new 1MB binary will be MUCH different=20 > byte-by-byte mostly because of address shifting so lots of pointers to=20 > code (or data, rodata) will change. so diff will be big. Is that a guess or did you actually test and verify this? Fabian --Sig_ISNkNvkudscLV8GYnqbc0nY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF+EkVBYqIVf93VJ0RAqjMAJ9j96CnHZZzuqyWY3P2E0Ltsv2Q0QCeKGBG K3TZUvF1rGczUZMPhvIL4P4= =00Y5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_ISNkNvkudscLV8GYnqbc0nY--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070314201221.3503c338>