> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <owner-freebsd- > [email protected]> On Behalf Of Garrett Wollman > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 1:29 PM > To: Cy Schubert <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: CFT: FreeBSD Package Base > > > Which begs the question, if we're simply replacing freebsd-update and > > it does most of what we want why the extra effort? > > Anyone who isn't using a completely stock make.conf/src.conf is already > replacing freebsd-update, and it would be much *less* effort to have only > one mechanism to distribute software rather than two. > > I'd like to have a better installation process, too, because that would make > it > much easier to redeploy servers. But most of our servers are file servers > with unique user data so "redeploy" is not a relevant operation much of the > time. > > -GAWollman > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkgbase > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pkgbase- > [email protected]"
This was a big motivator for us to merge base pkgs into poudriere. In my career I've written 4 build systems that all do some variation of buildworld/kernel + poudriere + create ISO + create updates. I'm sure plenty of other FreeBSD consumers have done the same, and frankly its getting old. At least now I'm down to poudriere + create ISO only. And my sympathies to anybody still having to use freebsd-update as part of their custom updating process 😉 -- Kris Moore Vice President of Engineering iXsystems, Inc Ph: (408) 943-4100 Ph: (408) 943-4101 The Groundbreaking TrueNAS M-Series - Enterprise Storage & Servers Driven By Open Source _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkgbase To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
