From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 25 11: 0:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ddg.com (eunuch.ddg.com [216.30.58.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209DD37BD66 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:00:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from nomad.dataplex.net (24.28.73.209) by mail.ddg.com with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1); Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:00:29 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth To: wc.bulte@chello.nl Subject: Patchkits: Was :Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:00:28 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.41] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: References: <39056A21.C58ED54A@originative.co.uk> <20000425194233.A816@yedi.wbnet> In-Reply-To: <20000425194233.A816@yedi.wbnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00042513002803.32593@nomad.dataplex.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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