On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. Most of the
open source OSes do it just fine. Debian had probably the easiest to use
system, and they've risen, owned the world and fallen all while FreeBSD has
been debating this issue.
Kai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Hello,
Another ™.02,
Today I'm installing Freebsd 6 from a CD, and I'm having to jump through
loops to get it up-to-date. Take for example FreeBSD-SA-06:03.cpio.
First I need to install the sources for the complete OS, then run a patch on
it, and all that for
Hi,
Kai wrote:
Another ™.02,
Today I'm installing Freebsd 6 from a CD, and I'm having to jump through
loops to get it up-to-date. Take for example FreeBSD-SA-06:03.cpio.
First I need to install the sources for the complete OS, then run a patch on
it, and all that for the installation of 1
On 22. des. 2005, at 22.17, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If
the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero
people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows,
Mac OS X or Solaris, to name just three commercial OS's.
On Fri, 2006-Jan-06 02:34:40 -0800, Jo
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
1. modified kernels are foobar
..yet are practically mandatory on production systems
Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine.
While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero
people
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:11:58PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:02, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
How do you expect these two to be handled in a binary upgrade?
I can't see how it's possible..
Look around.
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:26:12PM -0500, Ender wrote:
I think what integrated with the core OS means from a user standpoint
is: from a fresh minimum install of freebsd I can type
freebsd-update-whatever and it will update my system.
Just freebsd-update ;-)
That works fairly well with the
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:40:56PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
No. I want a binary update mechanism. Obviously if we have local
configuration options we'll have to compile our own binaries. But doing
the work of tracking system updates currently requires us to build our own
patch tracking
On Fri, 2006-Jan-06 02:34:40 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero
people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows,
Mac OS X or Solaris, to name just three commercial
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:47, Jo Rhett wrote:
But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been
describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS.
1. modified kernels are foobar
..yet are practically mandatory on production systems
2. modified
On Thu, 2005-Dec-22 13:17:30 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
But FreeBSD Update suffers from all of the same limitations that I've been
describing because of lack of integration with the Core OS.
1. modified kernels are foobar
..yet are practically mandatory on production systems
2. modified
Hello!
1. modified kernels are foobar
..yet are practically mandatory on production systems
Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine.
While I agree with much of your reasoning, I know exactly zero
people running a modified kernel of any version of Windows,
Mac OS X or
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:02, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 11:26:44AM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
How do you expect these two to be handled in a binary upgrade?
I can't see how it's possible..
Look around. Every major commercial OS does it just fine. Most of the
open source OSes
On Thu, 2006-Jan-05 01:37:27 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
No. I want a binary update mechanism. Obviously if we have local
configuration options we'll have to compile our own binaries. But doing
the work of tracking system updates currently requires us to build our own
patch tracking mechanism, and
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If
the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not distributed from the
FreeBSD.org domain, then a)
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:47, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as official as it gets. If
the only barrier to acceptance is that it's not
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Sat, 2005-Dec-17 23:35:34 +0100, Kövesdán Gábor wrote:
I agree. And after all, tracking a security branch isn't too difficult,
...
# cd /usr/src
# patch /path/to/patch
# cd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/cvs/cvsbug
# make obj make depend make make install
# cd
On Sat, 2005-Dec-17 18:19:25 -0700, Scott Long wrote:
Peter Jeremy wrote:
I think FreeBSD Update shows the way forward but IMHO there needs to
be an official binary update tool accessible from www.freebsd.org.
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD
Hi,
Scott Long wrote:
Peter Jeremy wrote:
I think FreeBSD Update shows the way forward but IMHO there needs to
be an official binary update tool accessible from www.freebsd.org.
FreeBSD Update was written by, and is continuously maintained by the
actual FreeBSD Security Officer. It's as
20 matches
Mail list logo
