On 10/13/05, David Kirchner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/12/05, David Kirchner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/12/05, Andrew P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's just not true. Cvsupping to something like > > > RELENG_5_4 will do exactly the same thing as > > > a patch, only it's the hassle-free way. You see > > > a sec-advisory, you type "cvsup -g -L 2 mysup" > > > recompile what's suggested in the advisory, or > > > the whole world - and you're done. > > > > cvsupping to RELENG_5_4 will include all of those patches, not just > > the one you just read about. So if you had to avoid installing a patch > > for some reason (you had a local solution, or something, it happens > > sometimes) then you need to avoid using the cvsup method. > > I just tried this again to verify. cvsuping to RELENG_5_4 gives you > 5.4-STABLE, which includes _many_ things not found in the > 5.4-RELEASE-p?? branch. I'm not saying people shouldn't upgrade to > 5.4-STABLE (although I do think efforts should be directed towards > including bugfixes in the 5.4-RELEASE-p?? branch) but that they should > be aware that cvsup'ing to RELENG_5_4 will give them a very different > result to patching the specific security advisory patches. >
I don't see a single reason why I shouldn't ask the BSD daemon to flame the hell out of you :-) Try again to verify. And again. Again then. And if you think that 5 times are enough, you might be right. But they are not enough for you. Currently: RELENG_5_4 = 5.4-RELEASE-p* RELENG_5 = 5.4-STABLE What's so hard about remembering that? My sense of humour is depleted, honestly. Browse through the CVS if you don't believe your eyes: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
