Package systems and stuff

Kendrick kendrick at
Thu May 13 00:12:15 PDT 2004

Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:

>On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 05:43, Kendrick wrote:
>>btw the automated  script is still a good thing.  how else is a sys adm 
>>to be able to quickly roll out a great deal of new machines in a 
>>reasonable amount of time else wise ;)
>Making binary packages, NFS mounts of /usr (or remote mounts of an
>existing filesystem), BOOTP and TFTP, the mechanisms are endless. 
>Making a number of systems in a hurry is only a small part of the work. 
>Maintaining them without the chance of accidentally leaving some behind
>is a huge task by comparison.
actually i was meaning no binary...  how ever the thought of the tree 
could be helpful from the manage meant aspect set convention of where 
and how to find what you need.  the alfs would allow a easy mechanism 
for maintenance as well any upgrades you need to do you just make a 
quick profile run it on all systems and wala all nessasary changes 
made.  from what i have seen it would  be robust enough to continue 
beyond just the install phase and because you know you didnt miss type 
for one machine and it will work exactly the same on all machines etc  
another levle of  unity is incorporated.  once a admin has the correct 
procedures down on the test system and has reproduced them a simple 
profile for alfs can be built for that purpose and  all will get the 
same treatment.  as  for binary stuff in the tree. last time i remember 
using openbsd  2.7 and 2.8 had a source tree that you downloaded and it 
was full of patches for different sources/packages that you used pkgadd 
for if i remember and several of those were source that built them 
selves once pkg add was invoked. how ever my memory is a bit hazy since 
its ben so long and i could be wrong.

i  believe Robert has said about that best though.

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list