Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)

Chuck Swiger cswiger at
Thu Dec 22 13:46:56 PST 2005

Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:55:03PM -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>>YMMV.  I burned a 6.0 release from the ISO image, and did a binary upgrade on an
>>IBM ThinkPad (T.34? maybe), which worked perfectly.  All of the 5.x binaries,
>>including X11, KDE, printing, Mozilla, etc worked just fine.
> There are no ISO for patch releases.

FreeBSD releases new .ISO images several times a year, but you've got the tools 
to make .ISO images of patch releases yourself, if you want to.  I don't think 
that the FreeBSD project can shorten the release cycle below a month or so, 
which means that patch releases are always going to be on the (b)leading edge...

> And taking systems offline for a .1
> update gets annoying fast.  Dealing with all the file comparisons which are
> exactly the same except for the CVS tag takes hours for no good reason.
> Multiple many hours by hundreds of systems, and you could easily have a
> full time person just doing FreeBSD upgrades.

Using a build server as a testbed and to generate new packages or even a new 
kernel + world will reduce the amount of work required, but FreeBSD does require 
some level of administration and maintenance.

>> Upgrading the ports from there was somewhat annoying
> I don't care about ports, just the base OS.  Ports we've built the
> infrastructure to handle properly, and very few ports are installed on
> production systems.

I've got firewalls with a single-digit number of ports installed, but anything 
else seems to acquire 100-200 or so.

>> Now, if you want to talk about upgrading to intermediate patch releases, you've
>> got a valid point there.  :-)
> That is exactly the point.  Both .01 and .1 releases are annoying.

I'm with you on this, but suggesting solutions is more useful than just noting 
the existence of problems.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list