On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:39:08PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > >> Anything else is on your side and even if I understand your complaints > >> (and I agree with some of them) I don't thing it will change anything on > >> the future of packaged base. > >> So it is better to spend our time on working local solution to new > >> problem. It has some pros and some cons and I hope the pros will > >> outweigh cons. > > > > I am don't talk 'this is imposible'. I am talk 'this is awkward'. > > What purpose for paclaging base system? packaging for packaging? Or > > packaging for simplify and comfortably management, maintance and > > upgrade? > > I hope it will simplified updates. Freebsd-update was so unreliable and > unpredictable for me that I returned to the "make buildkernel && make for mee too. > buildworld" on builder machine and "make installkernel && make > installworld" through NFS on destinations. And it has some cons too - currently i am do binary update: beadm create 10.3-pREV beadm mount 10.3-pREV /mnt cd /mnt find -x . -flags +schg | xargs chflags noschg fetch -qo - http://HOST/update/doc.txz | tar xf - fetch -qo - http://HOST/update/kernel.txz | tar xf - fetch -qo - http://HOST/update/lib32.txz | tar xf - fetch -qo - http://HOST/update/base.txz | tar xf - --exclude ./boot/device.hints ./COPYRIGHT boot dev media mnt proc tmp bin lib libexec rescue sbin usr var/yp/Makefile.dist fetch http://HOST/update/etcupdate.tar gpart bootcode -b /boot/pmbr -p /boot/gptzfsboot -i 1 ada1 cd / beadm umount 10.3-pREV beadm activate 10.3-pREV > recompile whole system and reinstall on all machines instead of just I am proposed: patch packages (replaced or removed some files). > some small package. It has it's impact on size of backups too. Size of backups?Received on Fri Mar 11 2016 - 13:51:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:03 UTC