From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 19:12:26 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0EE16A403 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:12:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de) Received: from smtprelay01.ispgateway.de (smtprelay01.ispgateway.de [80.67.18.13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDA613C457 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:12:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de) Received: (qmail 11616 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2007 19:12:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (775067@[217.50.165.211]) (envelope-sender ) by smtprelay01.ispgateway.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Mar 2007 19:12:23 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:12:21 +0100 From: Fabian Keil To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070314201221.3503c338@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20070314194527.W13133@chylonia.3miasto.net> References: <20070314155326.GA23363@thought.org> <20070314194527.W13133@chylonia.3miasto.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.8.0 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) X-PGP-KEY-URL: http://www.fabiankeil.de/gpg-keys/freebsd-listen-2008-08-18.asc Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_ISNkNvkudscLV8GYnqbc0nY; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 Subject: Re: binary patches? 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:12:26 -0000 --Sig_ISNkNvkudscLV8GYnqbc0nY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wojciech Puchar 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--