Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get?

[Freddie Cash]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Kevin Oberman <rkoberman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:10 AM Pete French <petefrench at ingresso.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On 14/02/2019 01:43, Jason Tubnor wrote:
> > > I also have hit this IPv6 issue (I thought I was going crazy until I
> > worked
> > > it out) and other iflib issues in 12.0, which have been fixed in
> -STABLE
> > > that really should be patched in 12.0 or bring forward an early 12.1
> > > release. For our use case, 12.0 is just too buggy for production at
> this
> > > rate and we won't touch it, which is a shame because there is a lot of
> > good
> > > work in there that we would like to use but it is trumped by the
> > breakages.
> >
> > Any reason behind not running STBLE out of interest ? Yes, 12 has been
> > buggy with regards to networking, but these things get fixed very fast
> > and I now have all my machines on the lattest STABLE in production, as
> > of yesterday.
> >
> > -pete.
> >
>
> Generally, not many.
>
> Far and away the biggest is the requirement to build from sources. It's not
> a big deal for me, but if I still had many systems to deal with, that would
> be a pain.
>

Just as one can setup a poudriere/synth system for building custom binary
package repositories (so one builds packages on one system for easy
installation on multiple systems using binary packages), one can also setup
a custom freebsd-update server (so one builds the OS on one system, for
easy installation on multiple servers using binary updates).  And that can
be done to track -STABLE or -CURRENT, I believe.

Granted, I have never done it, nor looked too deeply into the documentation
around it, but I do know it's possible. :)  At least in theory.  :D

IOW, the days of needing to compile everything on each individual machine
are behind us.

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwcash at gmail.com