Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:00:28 -0500
From:      Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
To:        wc.bulte@chello.nl
Cc:        <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Patchkits: Was :Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility
Message-ID:  <00042513002803.32593@nomad.dataplex.net>
In-Reply-To: <20000425194233.A816@yedi.wbnet>
References:  <39056A21.C58ED54A@originative.co.uk> <Pine.BSF.4.20.0004251739190.92416-100000@mx.webgiro.com> <20000425194233.A816@yedi.wbnet>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Wilko Bulte wrote:

> > On a similar note: I think one of serious drawbacks of FreeBSD's model
> > for updating and bugfixing the stable branch is 'make world'. It's very
> > inefficient and cumbersome way to do this on production machines. STABLE
> > is stable enough for us to be able to prepare binary patches, which can
> > be applied to a system in some (known) version. 

> Question: are MD5 checksums the same for each and every
> build (assuming static sources obviously) or is there some timestamp (or
> something like that) in the generated binary. If there is, one could only
> create binary patches relative to a -release.

Here your logic is wrong. When I make a binary patch, I don't HAVE to update 
anything that is not substantively changed. Think "make all" rather than 
"make world". From there, it is easy enough to generate a chain of patches 
just like CTM does for the sources. 
However, is it worth the effort? I don't know.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00042513002803.32593>