Re: Less messages to FreeBSD.org lists

I just want to say that if we'd do it then let's download source code, not 
binaries.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think that it still would be more Unix way of doing 
deals.
Different peoples have different kernels compiled by themselves (like I 
do) and there is no guarantee that binary updates would not hang up a 
system.

breath

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:30:32 +0000, Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> 
wrote:

> Colin Percival wrote:
>
>> <oxford> It's *fewer* messages, not *less* messages! </oxford>
>
>
> <manchester> I've just nicked your wallet you toff! </manchester> :-)
>
>>   I'd say that a more useful option would be to add code which
>> "pings" a server every day with a request for binary security
>> updates.
>
>
> Oooh.... now we're heading into the realms of Windows Update, and we 
> know how badly that can behave at times. As long as it was completely 
> optional, in fact something that sits in ports and not base, I'd think 
> that would work OK. The problem is, with so many builds out there on so 
> many platforms, linked with so many libraries, you can't just dispatch a 
> list of MD5s and know a particular item is "broken".
>

_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"