Gary Kline schrieb:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 05:07:43PM +0100, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
Gary Kline schrieb:
Regarding most (or many) of the port changes--say, upgrading
foo-2.1.9_5 to foo-2.1.9_6, if the upgrade could be done by
downloading a binary diff file, could the resulting
/usr/local/bin/foo-2.1.9_6 be achieved by downloading a
relatively small binary patch? Seems to me that smaller scale
upgrades could be done this way in preference to re-compiling
ports or downloading entire pacakes. --Same would go for any
dependencies.
Why is this a bad idea!
gary
The final form of actual binaries depend on a lot of things, e.g. which
version of dependency you compiled with, which CFLAGS you have used,
what options the port you built it. Some of these applies to packages as
well, that's why I prefer ports over packages at all. E.g. let's see
lang/php5. It does not have the apache module enabled by default. If it
were, then the problem comes up with Apache versions. IIRC, 2.2 is the
default now, but what if you use 2.0? How would you install php for your
apache version from package? The situtation has been already pretty
complicated with packages if you have higher needs for fine tuning, but
you can use them if you don't have special needs. Binary diffs would be
so complicated that I think this way we could really not follow.
If you need simplicity at all, use portupgrade with packages. It has an
option (don't remember which one) you can use to make it fetch packages
instead of building from source. Nowadays, this network traffic should
not be a real problem, I think.
You've brought up a lot of things I didn't consider; this was
part of the reason for my post. It seems to me that there would
need to be some simple ground rules from the binary patches I'm
got in mind. The *default* CFLAGS in the port would match those
in the patch is one place to start.
Obviously, this could get way out of hand very quickly. Two of
my slowest servers (one 400MHz, 192M RAM) were rebuilding parts
of the KDE suite; the new kdelib-3.5.6 [??] just finished and I
already scp'd it over to my more beefy platform. Once I've got
all my servers up to date, it may not be that hard to keep them
current. You're right that bandwidth isn't a problem--um, in
most places {{ clearing my throat! }}. Bandwidth isn't the main
issue. It's time.
As you said, bandwith is not an issue, but time is, what I understand,
of course. What I wanted to point out was exactly the same. For time
concerns, you can use portupgrade with packages (somebody already
mentioned with which option you can do this) and it will fetch the
appropriate new packages for you. Binary patches would not make this
process much faster if bandwith is not a concern.
Regards,
Gabor
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
