binary patches?

[Gary Kline]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 02:55:15PM -0900, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 15:00, Gary Kline said:
> >
> This issue comes up about every six months. If you google the mailing 
> list you will find extensive discussion about why binary upgrades are 
> a bad idea. 

	Well, certainly not upgrading the "world" and kernel....


> If you want to upgrade using packages only 
> use 'portupgrade -PP'. Bear in mind it takes the package build 
> cluster a couple of weeks to catch up. For security reasons we 
> (maintainers) don't build packages and building binaries for every 
> possible configuration would place an extreme load on the build 
> cluster (not to mention the space required to host them all).

	I'm willing to donate one 400Mhz Kayak; just sans memory or disk.
	Seriously, but I think the cluster needs much faster hardware.
	At any rate, I was thinking of inbetweener-patches; so that it
	would be possible to stay current between pkg-1.2.3_4 and
	pkg-1.2.3_5, say.  This, only for the vanilla i386 packages.

	Still, given the variables of CPUTYPE and the possible/probably
	diffs in -Optimization and other CFLAGS variations, it's pretty
	clear that evn a vanilla patch would be overkill.  With almost
	17K ports, you guys have enough on your hands!

	gary




> 
> Beech
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Beech Rintoul - Port Maintainer - beech at alaskaparadise.com
> /"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign  | FreeBSD Since 4.x
> \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail   | http://www.freebsd.org
>  X  - NO Word docs in e-mail | Latest Release:
> / \  - http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.2R/announce.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 



-- 
  Gary Kline  kline at thought.org   www.thought.org  Public Service Unix