Hello, Han. On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:00:40 +0159 Han Boetes <han@mijncomputer.nl> wrote:
Mikhail Kolesnik wrote:
Han Boetes <han@mijncomputer.nl> wrote:
regular releases are better for installers so they are quite up to date to start with. And for people who keep tracking updates they are not necessary, all they have to do is change the release tag and rebuild some ports and run rejmerge.
Once again something inside tells me it's a way towards some troubles after 2-3 such updates. Double rebuild of the whole system in chrooted environment sounds like an overkill, but what is the safe and sane way?
Download the iso and update all the packages the binary way. They're already build for you. An obvious solution is not my first choice, sadly... After all, I am not so crazy on rebuilding/optimizing personal workstation. Just want to be sure this wont brake some server system =(
Such way a crux-current would be even nicer and simpler to follow, but not shure how toolchain changes are implemented, for example, in OpenBSD-current.
Also, they are kernel developers too, while crux only implements userspace. There are ~80 active developers working on OpenBSD and very few here. So the cycle period is not a trivial thing to choose.
You can think up a lot of nonexisting problems. :-) Yes, that is my well-known vulnerability.
CRUX is much simpler than OpenBSD, keeping it up to date and working while testing new stuff is just a hobby of mine, and I bet it's the same for the other maintainers.
What you get in the meanwhile as an enduser is a linux distro that's easy to build and maintain. Have to agree here.
-- Mikhail Kolesnik ICQ: 260259143у IRC: mike_k at freenode/#crux, rusnet/#yalta Jabber: mike_k@jabber.lafox.net NIC handle: MKK83-UANIC