Re: Binary updates (was Re: It's not Rust, it's FreeBSD (and LLVM))

On 9/9/24 10:32, Cy Schubert wrote:
> In message <202409090442.4894gGMb086473@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net>,
> Jamie La
> ndeg-Jones writes:
>> void <void@f-m.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> ? really? All my -stable and -current machines are recompiled from source.
>>> Is this really that rare?
>> Mine too (well, I only track stable at the moment, and am only talking about
>> 8
>> machines)
>>
>> I have too many local patches to easily do it any other way. As it is, i sync
>> src, patches are automatically applied, then make buildworld etc... is all
>> that's needed.
>>
>> Similar story for ports vs packages - too many patches (and custom options)
> Those of us who build from source and build ports, whether manually or
> through our own poudriere, are the minority. Just visit the FreeBSD forums.
> I attend OpenHack here. People who do use FreeBSD use freebsd-update and
> binary packages. (I use freebsd-update and binary packages on some VMs at
> $JOB, while maintaining my own network at home as any developer does.)
>
> And that's a marketing feature of FreeBSD. Most users don't want he hassle
> of building and installing an O/S.
>
> And a co-worker has set up an EC2 instance (thanks cpercival@).
>
> Out in the real world people use binary updates and binary packages. We
> developers are an anomaly these days.
>
> Just because a few of us build from source doesn't mean the rest of the
> world does.
>
>
Probably...

Used to compile on every instance of FreeBSD I run.

Still do on many, but have moved to using freebsd-update on some.

(Just learned Saturday that is is _not_ a good idea to try to update 
multiple classic jails in parallel (thus at the same time) with 
freebsd-update. <LOL>)