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
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
gpart bootcode -b /boot/pmbr -p /boot/gptzfsboot -i 1 ada1
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?
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"