Re: [Openbsdbinpatch-misc] hello list

[z0mbix <zo...@zo...>]

On 10/01/07, Ingo Schwarze <sch...@us...> wrote:
> Hi Gerardo, salut Antoine,
>
> Gerardo Santana G=F3mez Garrido wrote on Wed, Jan 10, 2007:
> > 2007/1/9, Antoine Jacoutot <aja...@lp...>:
>
> >> - no need to install the sets, use mtree (drawback, make the
> >>   patches bigger), so anyone with a stable system and /usr/src
> >>   can create binpatches
> >
> > I'm not sure about this.  I'd like to hear opinions of the other
> > members of the list.
>
> Usually, i hate options (in particular useless and complicated ones).
> In this case, an option might make sense, though.
>
> Both types of patches have their relevant advantage:
> Using mtree doesn't require getting and unpacking install sets.
> Using the install sets minimizes patch size.
>
> Besides, the effect of this option will be strictly local
> at a single point inside the bsd.binpatch.mk file, so the
> resulting obfuscation will be minimal.
>
> I suggest to keep the variant using the install sets as the
> default.  Usually, you do have the install sets (otherwise, how
> did you install the OS in the first place?), and usually, the
> machine used for building binpatches will not be short on
> resources (rather, the machine the binpatches are built for
> might be a small or slow one).
>
> > As much as I agree that it would be a convenience to get a way
> > to use mtree and so avoid installing the sets (it would be faster
> > and require less disk space), I think binpatch would not make
> > sense anymore if we pack files others than the modified ones.
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
>
> Building an mtree-style binpatch is even simpler than building
> a standard binpatch.  Installing an mtree-style binpatch requires
> only a little more resources than installing a standard binpatch -
> yet, compared to the standard solution make release(8), it is
> still *much* less demanding.  Thus, no, i do not think Antoine's
> suggestion would render binpatch useless.
>
> On the other hand, it would be a pity if the possibility to
> minimize patch size were given up completely.
>
> [...]
> > I'd like to keep binpatch's approach as simple as possible.
>
> I do strongly agree.
>
> Yours,
>   Ingo
>

I'm happy with the way binpatch is, nice and simple. As previously
stated above, most people have the install sets to hand on the build
server anyway so I see no need to change things. I have been using
binpatch for a couple of years now with great success. Here are my
patch_add and patch_info that I use to manage my binpatches:

http://www.zombix.org/code/patch_add
http://www.zombix.org/code/patch_info

Cheers z0mbix