Patch vs. Upgrade

[Andrew P.]

On 10/13/05, David Kirchner <dpk at dpk.net> wrote:
> On 10/12/05, David Kirchner <dpk at dpk.net> wrote:
> > On 10/12/05, Andrew P. <infofarmer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's just not true. Cvsupping to something like
> > > RELENG_5_4 will do exactly the same thing as
> > > a patch, only it's the hassle-free way. You see
> > > a sec-advisory, you type "cvsup -g -L 2 mysup"
> > > recompile what's suggested in the advisory, or
> > > the whole world - and you're done.
> >
> > cvsupping to RELENG_5_4 will include all of those patches, not just
> > the one you just read about. So if you had to avoid installing a patch
> > for some reason (you had a local solution, or something, it happens
> > sometimes) then you need to avoid using the cvsup method.
>
> I just tried this again to verify. cvsuping to RELENG_5_4 gives you
> 5.4-STABLE, which includes _many_ things not found in the
> 5.4-RELEASE-p?? branch. I'm not saying people shouldn't upgrade to
> 5.4-STABLE (although I do think efforts should be directed towards
> including bugfixes in the 5.4-RELEASE-p?? branch) but that they should
> be aware that cvsup'ing to RELENG_5_4 will give them a very different
> result to patching the specific security advisory patches.
>

I don't see a single reason why I shouldn't ask
the BSD daemon to flame the hell out of you :-)

Try again to verify. And again. Again then. And
if you think that 5 times are enough, you might
be right. But they are not enough for you.

Currently:

RELENG_5_4 = 5.4-RELEASE-p*
RELENG_5 = 5.4-STABLE

What's so hard about remembering that? My
sense of humour is depleted, honestly.

Browse through the CVS if you don't believe
your eyes:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh