freebsd stable - Dec 2013 - freebsd-update use (was: Re: FreeBSD 10.0-RC2 Now Available)

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo at
gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 December 2013 18:22, Royce Williams <royce at tycho.org> wrote:
>> Also -- Odhiambo, freebsd-update doesn't have to clobber your
kernel.
>> There are many options in /etc/freebsd-update.conf that let you
>> precisely control what is updated.  See 'man
freebsd-update.conf' for
>> details.
> What happens when I have a new world with an old kernel? No pain??
> Well, I was so much used to buildworld/buildkernel that when I am told the
> buildkernel is not necessary, I kinda fear - probably fear on something
that
> doesn't bite.
Your kernel and userland do still have to be compatible, regardless of
how you keep them both updated.  If you are just adding or removing
features in your kernel, and not trying to track different branches,
you should be fine.

If I could wave my Magic Feature Wand, I'd have the FreeBSD project
maintain a few different stock kernels, and let admins configure
freebsd-update to choose which kernel to track.  This would allow
*many* more people to switch to using freebsd-update, which would mean
that more boxes on the Internet would be patched more quickly more
often.  And that would be better for the ecosystem as a whole.

Royce

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Royce Williams <royce at tycho.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 17 December 2013 18:22, Royce Williams <royce at tycho.org>
wrote:
>
> >> Also -- Odhiambo, freebsd-update doesn't have to clobber your
kernel.
> >> There are many options in /etc/freebsd-update.conf that let you
> >> precisely control what is updated.  See 'man
freebsd-update.conf' for
> >> details.
>
> > What happens when I have a new world with an old kernel? No pain??
> > Well, I was so much used to buildworld/buildkernel that when I am told
> the
> > buildkernel is not necessary, I kinda fear - probably fear on
something
> that
> > doesn't bite.
>
> Your kernel and userland do still have to be compatible, regardless of
> how you keep them both updated.  If you are just adding or removing
> features in your kernel, and not trying to track different branches,
> you should be fine.
>
> If I could wave my Magic Feature Wand, I'd have the FreeBSD project
> maintain a few different stock kernels, and let admins configure
> freebsd-update to choose which kernel to track.  This would allow
> *many* more people to switch to using freebsd-update, which would mean
> that more boxes on the Internet would be patched more quickly more
> often.  And that would be better for the ecosystem as a whole.
>
Ideally, the GENERIC kernel would be trimmed down to the very basics of
what's needed to boot and detect peripherals on the different buses, and
then load all drivers via kernel modules.  And, there would be no (or very
few) compile-time options.

Thus, there would be very little need to compile a custom kernel, and
freebsd-update would be usable across many different setups.??

?We're still a long way from there, but getting closer.?

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwcash at gmail.com