2009/6/17 Alex Stangl <a...@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. > > Thanks, > > Alex >
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 me fine. Basically, a source update is guaranteed and THE supported method, but freebsd-update is just so damn convenient! Chris -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list? _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
