Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:41:51 +0100 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rsync vs installworld Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20031020073640.031bf968@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <20031020061931.GE57130@straylight.oblivion.bg> References: <20031019101653.A29979@tikitechnologies.com> <20031019190036.3426D16A4D7@hub.freebsd.org> <20031019101653.A29979@tikitechnologies.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:19 20/10/2003 +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 10:16:54AM -1000, Clifton Royston wrote:
> > In our case we have already built a simple framework for
> > distributing FreeBSD binary packages built within the ports system
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > (rsync presently,
> > but extensible to http/https.) I have been hoping that it's possible to
> > build on the "make release" approach to generate a set of binary
> > packages for updates to the base system, distribute those via rsync,
> > and then install the package collection.
>
>Errr, isn't this pretty much what Colin Percival's
>security/freebsd-update port already does? :)
FreeBSD Update doesn't handle the ports tree. That said, as long as one
wishes to track the release branch of base, there's no reason not to use
FreeBSD Update + portupgrade.
This wasn't an option for the original poster (imp@) because he wanted
to track -stable.
Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.1.20031020073640.031bf968>