It's not a big deal because there isn't another option, really. You can build elsewhere, copy over /usr/obj/, and install from there, but that still involves some work. If there was a binary upgrade option I would totally use it.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Carsten Mattner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Justin Sherrill > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Carsten Mattner >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sorry for hijacking the thread, but are there plans to provide base binary >>> tarballs or even modularize it into several packages for use with pkg? >>> For a stable branch to be used on servers, it'd be much, much easier. >> >> That's two separate things - binary installs, and using pkg to hold >> the base system. I'm assuming you want binary installs. It could in >> theory be possible to do that now with a live CD and cpdup - in >> theory. There hasn't been anyone that I know of specifically working >> on this as an idea. > > I know, and I wrote ' or ' because of that :). > > I had the best BSD binary base update experience with HardenedBSD's > hbsd-update, while FreeBSD's old update scripts have always been > a little too much work. Now that FreeBSD is working on pkg'ifying base, > it might win here. > > If I reformulate my question: Given that the pkg tree has binaries > and thus makes updates easy on a server, if you don't need different > make options, why is it deemed not a big deal that updating base > requires, say, a buildworld on your remote server? > Do serious dfly server operators build locally and push binaries > to the server?
