cvsup ports and portupgrade -rva .
kstewart at owt.com
Fri Jan 30 19:18:36 PST 2004
On Friday 30 January 2004 12:06 pm, Andrew J Caines wrote:
> > What is the preferred method to keep the installed ports and ports
> > trees synced between identical servers?
> If you explicitly want to keep ports trees on multiple systems in
> sync, then the canonical method is to use cvsup to update from the
> mirrors to a server, then use cvs to update the clients (including
> the "server").
> On the other hand if you only want to keep the ports themselves in
> sync, then the two likely approaches are sharing the ports tree and
> distributing packages.
> Sharing the tree means that you can easily build and install for
> multiple architectures, or for a single architecture you can update
> and build on one system and install on many. I've not tried it, but
> I'd imaging that something like "portupgrade --noclean --nocleanup
> --all" would run nicely on the client systems.
> If you don't like sharing filesystems, you can build and package on
> one system (for each architecture), then distribute those packages to
> the other systems.
That is how I do it. I have one system that I use to build INDEX and
INDEX.db and ftp those to the other systems. The port tree is updated
between when my cvs-mirror is updated. I have a cvsupd running as a
cronjob and use cvsup to update the local machines. I update the mirror
every 4 hours and that gives me time to produce an identical port tree
on the other machines. Rather than nfs_mount, I wildcard ftp the
packages to the other machines and use portupgrade -Puf to do the
actual upgrade. The system running Apache-2.0.48 has to maintain Apache
because that is the only system running it and it takes awhile.
More information about the freebsd-ports