Minimal file set

[Justin Sherrill]

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
<carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Justin Sherrill
> <justin at shiningsilence.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Carsten Mattner
>> <carstenmattner at gmail.com> 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?