[nycbug-talk] Syntax question porteasy + freebsd.nycbug.org
mspitzer at gmail.com
Tue Nov 14 11:03:28 EST 2006
On 11/14/06, Marco Scoffier <marco at metm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 11:26:59PM -0500, Marc Spitzer wrote:
> >>porteasy lets you download just the skeleton of the ports you need not
> >>the whole ports tree (thanks to Dru's blogs for that).
> >umm why bother, it seems like a bad idea to me anyway. cvs is much
> >slower then using csup/cvsup or portsnap and the deltas are generally
> I like to be lean... ??
ports tree is under 1/2 gig, I guess I have not had the desire to be
quite that thin in a while.
> I usually use porteasy in jails setup to contain a specific application like
> just mailman+apache+postfix or some big php+mysql mess.
for that I like to make packages and just install them into the jail,
I admit it does not always work on all ports but for most of them it
Another alternitive is to mount /usr/ports via nfs and have a full
tree sitting in one place and just mount it to build stuff.
/etc/make.conf and /var/db/pkg would be in the jail so all config info
would stay in the jail. Make and install your ports and unmount the
FS, cant get much leaner then that.
> Using porteasy I don't have to use >2G per jail which is nice, and all
> the skeletons of the dependencies are downloaded, so everything just
> builds. All skeletons can be updated in one line also: porteasy -uI
fair enough point.
Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.
More information about the talk