utisoft at googlemail.com
Wed Jun 17 14:42:43 UTC 2009
2009/6/17 Alex Stangl <alex at stangl.us>:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:17:32AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
>> Just curiosity, what's wrong with source upgrading? Isn't it miles
>> easier than reinstalling?
> Probably nothing. I haven't done it before, so there's the usual
> apprehension dealing with the unknown. I originally thought that since I
> just use a generic kernel, a binary upgrade should be quickest, easiest,
> and safest. Freebsd.org was touting the freebsd-update script, so that
> seemed the obvious way to go.
> I guess I'll clean up the mess left by freebsd-update and try the route
> of upgrading via source. But then I am left wondering why the
> freebsd.org site continues to recommend using freebsd-update which is
> seemingly broken and unsupported, while people on the mailing list
> recommend source upgrades instead.
As I see it, binary updates are fantastic for incremental patches (for
security etc), but for anything other than small patches or point
releases (eg 7.1-7.2) I'd use source. Just my opinion, but it's served
Basically, a source update is guaranteed and THE supported method, but
freebsd-update is just so damn convenient!
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?
More information about the freebsd-questions