On 02/10/13 08:33, Crookedmaze wrote: ... > Thanks for replying guys, I have looked into using snapshots but it > looks like the snapshots are based off of current and I had a look at > the FAQ and in section 5.1 of the FAQ it says. > > "Between formal releases of OpenBSD, /snapshots/ are made available > through the FTP sites <http://www.openbsd.org/ftp.html>. As the name > implies, these are builds of whatever > code is in the tree at the instant the builder grabbed a copy of the > code for that > particular platform. Remember, on some platforms, it may be DAYS before > the snapshot build is completed and put out for distribution. There is no > promise that the snapshots are completely functional, or even install." > > This makes me a little nervous and I think I would rather just follow > release with errata patches or just follow stable.
One thing that is different between OpenBSD and most other open source projects (and probably most closed source projects) is that we work hard to keep the source tree ALWAYS functional -- if something goes into the tree and is attached to the build, it either works, or beatings will be applied. If you install a snapshot and it doesn't work, someone screwed up, it's your job at that time to scream loudly and make sure people know, so the offending code is fixed or backed out, and measures will be taken to deter the offender from doing it again. (You don't want to know, it isn't pretty.) Unfortunately, our practice is rare enough that most people have a (justified) fear of living at HEAD of the source tree, and even an expectation that it is completely broken. Things are different here in OpenBSD. But really, it's an extraordinary event for snapshots to be broken, and it is important that people test them. (That particular part of the FAQ has been updated repeatedly to try to get the tone Just Right, and probably responsible for more..uh.. "heated" e-mails from Theo to me than anything else. And, I it looks like I missed this particular section last time I updated the paragraphs very shortly before it. Improvements are taking place now, see if I can get it in before Theo lights his flame thrower...) > OK, System > Administrator I see what you mean by overhead now, now that I think about > it I am starting to see what you mean by undue burdon (why would you add > something new if what is being used right now works just fine?) I will > have to have a look at marc.info and see what I can find on the topic on > binary updates there also. Nick your right I should stop trying to make > OpenBSD like FreeBSD or Linux, in all honestly I don't really mind the > current update process, really the only actual "problem" I have had with > it is simply that if you had multiple servers running OpenBSD > (eg if you had 200 servers why would you build the patch on all 200 of > them) yes, don't. Build on one, fast, otherwise mostly idle machine. Build a release. Install to your 200 other machines. Done. > but the tool Brian suggested I look at looked promising in that > it looks like you could just apply the patch on a single system build a > package and have all the other servers install the package. > Nick I also agree with you that there is > a certain "simple elegance" about OpenBSD its actually one of my > favorite things about OpenBSD in that it is secure by default > and the installer for it is great because I can install OpenBSD > in about 3 minutes (as opposed to 20-30+ minutes on others) > not to mention all the time I would normally have to spend > hardening the system post install. With OpenBSD its just a matter > of checking the errata page. I think 'e's got it. :) Nick.
