Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:40:54 +0200 From: Marin Atanasov Nikolov <dnaeon@gmail.com> To: Greg Byshenk <freebsd@byshenk.net>, Yue Wu <vanopen@gmail.com>, ml-freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Cc: Clifton Royston <cliftonr@lava.net> Subject: Re: Question about packages installed via `pkg_add -r` Message-ID: <AANLkTi=vgYWj4uV%2BqL-HHPH0gKLXt0Cc4eqhY7RSX_tg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110306180859.GA18399@lava.net> References: <20110305150436.GA2175@fbsd.t60.cpu> <20110305154817.GQ30336@core.byshenk.net> <4D72A069.90104@FreeBSD.org> <20110306010015.GC4160@fbsd.t60.cpu> <AANLkTi=_K=q3O3jZZLeDjj9AsckWzu9Sz-Ju7kxhknn9@mail.gmail.com> <20110306011433.GA21857@fbsd.t60.cpu> <AANLkTinhdiEPxyvBGDGWS%2B3Y%2B69YzW7_9NeUs4B2gVTT@mail.gmail.com> <20110306020917.GA90894@fbsd.t60.cpu> <20110306140628.GS30336@core.byshenk.net> <20110306180859.GA18399@lava.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Clifton Royston <cliftonr@lava.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 03:06:28PM +0100, Greg Byshenk wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 10:09:17AM +0800, Yue Wu wrote:
>> > ports with portmaster makes pkg installation mangement be much more
>> > flexiable and more friendly than package by pkg_add -r on FreeBSD,
>> > except that ports take much more time and resource. After trying with
>> > packages, I think I have to stick to ports.
>>
>> As suggested by some of the other comments, you can choose to use
>> portmaster with packages, if you prefer not to do local builds.
>>
>> In my own case, I use ports and packages, via portmaster. That is,
>> I use one machine to build locally-configured packages (in some
>> cases with non-standard options), and then install them on the rest
>> of the machines as packages. It works very well in my environment.
>
> I second this approach if you are managing more than one machine.
> Once I got this approach working, we used to do this when I was working
> on a spam filtering solution, and also at my ISP. It greatly
> simplifies and reduces the time spent managing a multi-machine
> environment; it works even better when you're handling steps like
> deploying from a test environment into a production environment. You
> can even go a step further to define and create your own packages
> containing sets of configuration files you want to deploy in
> conjunction with the binaries.
>
I would go even further improving that setup and make a fully
automated environment using something like this:
[ VCS ] ---> [ Cfengine 2/3 Server ]
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
[ System 1 ] [ System 2 ] [ System N ]
Somewhere in the above picture we have as well Tinderbox'es building
our packages and uploading them to a local FTP server.
When you need to upgrade a package on multiple (or even all)
systems/jails, you just update the Cfengine 2/3 configuration and
that's all.
This would greatly reduce the time and effort to keep your systems updated.
Regards,
Marin
> -- Clifton
>
> --
> Clifton Royston -- cliftonr@iandicomputing.com / cliftonr@lava.net
> President - I and I Computing * http://www.iandicomputing.com/
> Custom programming, network design, systems and network consulting services
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
--
Marin Atanasov Nikolov
dnaeon AT gmail DOT com
daemon AT unix-heaven DOT org
http://www.unix-heaven.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=vgYWj4uV%2BqL-HHPH0gKLXt0Cc4eqhY7RSX_tg>