[nycbug-talk] Syntax question porteasy + freebsd.nycbug.org

Marc Spitzer mspitzer at gmail.com
Tue Nov 14 12:12:07 EST 2006

On 11/14/06, Marco Scoffier <marco at metm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 11:03:28AM -0500, Marc Spitzer wrote:
> >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.
> >
> I like this idea also (not incompatible with porteasy BTW).

not incompatible, but if done this why adding porteasy into it turns
into an added step with no real benifit, ie why bother.

> I was going to try to mount a single /usr/ports dir from multiple jails,
> on a server I am bringing online in the next week or so.  It will
> replace several other boxes and it would be real nice to only keep one
> tree updated.
> Is NFS the way to go? I was looking at the null mount examples here:

It was just what came to mind, Ike would know about GEOM Voodoo.  Ike
you there?  With that said NFS should work.  From what I remember
hearing/reading null mounts are orphaned and flaky, I could be wrong

Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.
Albert Camus

More information about the talk mailing list