Making OpenBSD Binary Patches With Chroot

Lawrence Teo writes "Unlike other operating systems, patches for the OpenBSD base system are distributed as source code patches. These patches are usually applied by compiling and installing them onto the target system. While that upgrade procedure is well documented, it is not suitable for systems that don't have the OpenBSD compiler set installed for whatever reason, such as disk-space constraints. To fill this gap, open source projects like binpatch were started to allow administrators to create binary patches using the BSD make system. This article proposes an alternative method to build binary patches using a chroot environment in an attempt to more closely mirror the instructions given in the OpenBSD patch files."

Thank you OpenBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

PF is very good and much better then pos netfilter.

PFSense has to be the best firewall software around. PFSense > mOnOwall, smoothwall, or any pos Linux firewall

Have I missed something here?

[00_NOP]

Linux patches are also distributed as source code. Indeed, isn't this the old skool *nix way, full stop?

Slashvertisement

[mandelbr0t]

The submitter is just pumping up clicks to his own site. You'll notice that he's also the author of TFA. I don't see that this is a particularly useful system, since you'd just be building binaries on another box anyway. If you're going to do that, you might as well just build an upgrade CD and upgrade through the normal process.

Re:Have I missed something here?

[QuantumG]

There's this other OS you might have heard of, it's called "Windows". Stupid name, I know. They distribute their patches as binaries. I also heard there's this other OS, it's something like "Tiger" or "Panther" or something and they do the same thing.

I know every fourth word out of Theo's mouth is a slight against Linux, but that doesn't mean everyone related to OpenBSD does this.

Re:disk constraints?

[wb8wsf]

Thats a questionable statement, that OpenBSD is primarily for firewalls.
I'm writing this on an OpenBSD 4.1-current laptop (IBM A31p ThinkPad) and
have used OpenBSD exclusively since 2001 for all my desktops. A lot of
people are discovering that OpenBSD does really well as a desktop. With
the introduction of 4.1, Open Office is supported, not to mention KDE,
media stuff, a really outstanding population of wireless cards, etc. I
think there are people who think of OpenBSD as a just a firewall; as
good (well, wonderful) as pf is, there is so much more there.

Re:Packages?

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider OpenBSD my primary desktop OS. Now, having used systems like Debian, I must admit yours is a question that's difficult to answer. I probably can't come up with one that is compelling for all people. But I can take a stab at how I feel about the issue.

If I could use a few words to describe the interaction of base system packages on Linux with the equivalent on BSD, I could describe the BSD scheme with words like "small", "simple", "cohesive", "compact". Although many different software packages are in fact pulled from many different sources (gcc and Xorg are some important examples), there is a sense of it all belonging to a single unit. It is developed together, in the same source tree. If you look at header files, or config files for various daemons, or the source tree itself, or whatever, you get the feeling that it is all one big unit.

If BSD is all these things, then Linux package management can be described as somewhat more "chaotic". This is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that different packages can be developed, configured, and upgraded separately in the base system. This has some benefits, sure. But you also lose some of that cohesion. A simple example: on OpenBSD, you can configure all of the preinstalled daemons in the base system with one fell swoop, by editing the config file /etc/rc.conf. This is accomplished by developers hand tweaking the default config file and the shell scripts that take action upon it. The typical Linux solution is to have the package manager rather chaotically add to /etc/init.d and /etc/rc.* at the whim of potentially thousands of different package authors. There are pros and cons to both approaches, but, it all boils down to a philosophical difference. And between BSD and Linux, there are many philosophical differences. I think a lot of them boil down to the contrast between chaotic and very conservative development.

So, I don't know if I have conclusively answered your question, but this is a small part of my view on the subject.

It might be nice for OpenBSD to provide binary patches. They do, after all, provide binaries for lots of packages in ports. It might also be worthwhile to remember that OpenBSD is relatively small, relatively developer-oriented, and not a rich project. It might not be worth the effort to put lots of different binaries online when they can focus their energies on improving -current.

Re:LOL OpenBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but I left the Linux world a few years ago because I got tired of wasting time managing the OS and fucking around with trying to figure out what changed this particular kernel release or what the new packet filter is going to be this year, or if we'll be using tmpfs or udev or whatever the fuck else as a memory filesystem, or why some stuff that used to work doesn't anymore. Etc, etc. ad infinitum.
OBSD is so fucking cohesive and stable compared to Linux that I can't imagine ever wanting to go back.