Re: Binary Updates for DragonFly

["Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:30:26 +0100
"Alex Neundorf" <alex.neundorf@kitware.com> wrote:

> On 12/16/07, Simon 'corecode' Schubert <corecode@fs.ei.tum.de> wrote:
> > As soon as you compile stuff, you probably will get different binaries.
> > If you update the kernel, you need to update the userland as well.
> >
> > If we had a way to identify from which sources a binary was compiled
> > from, we could do upgrades more easily.  Maybe enhance gcc to include a
> > checksum of the sources into the object?
> 
> I'm not sure this would be enough.
> The binaries could be built with different features enabled (which use
> a different set of libraries), with different compiler/linker options,
> with different dependencies.

	Perhaps this is overkill, one simplification would be to assume
that the binary patches are only for systems installed from official ISOs
and so the binary update will take you from (say) 1.10.1 to 1.10.2 and will
complain if the file being patched does not have the expected intial
checksum. The principle being that a user is either in release plus binary
updates world or in build from source world but not in both.

-- 
C:>WIN                                      |   Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins.                | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    licences available see
                                            |    http://www.sohara.org/