Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:17:30 -0800 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>, stable@freebsd.org, K?vesd?n G?bor <gabor.kovesdan@t-hosting.hu>, current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Update is the binary update solution [Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006] Message-ID: <20051222211730.GK39174@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <43A4B91D.8040304@samsco.org> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <20051217215434.GB92180@svcolo.com> <20051217220807.GA28741@freebie.xs4all.nl> <43A492B6.6050305@t-hosting.hu> <20051217232856.GT77268@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <43A4B91D.8040304@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the > actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If > the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not distributed from the > FreeBSD.org domain, then a) that's a silly argument, and b) it's easily > solvable so long as Colin agrees. But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS. 1. modified kernels are foobar ..yet are practically mandatory on production systems 2. modified sources are foobar ..yet many common production situations require source compilation options 3. FreeBSD Update can't handle updates of jails and other situations that package systems deal with just fine. -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051222211730.GK39174>