From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 2 19:22:24 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB4416A4CE for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:22:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from engraver.valleygate.net (12-240-1-161.client.mchsi.com [12.240.1.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD6B43D1F for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:22:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wizlayer@gmail.com) Received: from wizard.valleygate.net (wizard.valleygate.net [10.51.10.3]) j32JMLj4050242; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:22:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wizlayer@gmail.com) From: wizlayer To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:22:19 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <424EEB21.1010109@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <424EEB21.1010109@mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504021422.20886.wizlayer@gmail.com> cc: infofarmer@mail.ru Subject: Re: Some kind of intranet update system for FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: wizlayer@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:22:24 -0000 On Saturday 02 April 2005 01:57 pm, Andrew P. wrote: > Hello! > > I know this has been brought up a number of times > and I doubt that it is the right place to post to > or even a right subject to raise, but still. > > It seems we lack some update system in FreeBSD. I > have only 2 freebsd boxes, one serving as an > internet gateway for the other. And whenever I want > to update the latter one, I think about all the > traffic that I'm gonna waste and CPU time to build > and my own time to get some distros from one machine > to another. > > I dream about a server running on my main machine, > which gets queries from intranet freebsd boxes that > want to be updated. The server negotiates with each > client and acts as requested: > 1.1) fetches a binary package, or > 1.2) fetches a source package, or > 1.3) finds a binary/source in its cache, and > 2) builds a package if needed, and > 3) gives binary/source to the client > > Is that so difficult? C'mon guys, just one step > forward to perfection :) > > Very best wishes, > Andrew P. > > > P.S.: M$ SUS 1.x sucks so hard that I can't even > find the right words to describe it. Sorry :) AP, Outside of running your own cvsup service on your LAN (which still wouldn't include distfiles), there are just too many factors involved in what you are proposing... and obvious instance being, station A may/may not want/need certain flags involved with it's build whereas station B would. I had a cvsup service on my fileserver for a little while (not practical for me, but I wanted the learn). Outside of setting up something like that, I just don't see how it could be practical (esp if it's just for two boxes). Of course, you could set your boxes up to share the distfiles. HTH, WizLayer P.S. the proposed "step forward to perfection" sounds more like a step towards the MS way of thinking (the "make 'em stupid, keep 'em stupid" thing).