On 07/23/2010 01:56 AM, Fbsd8 wrote: > Now about my project. Since about 4.0 I stopped using the ports tree > method. I now all most totally use the package system. I do not upgrade > a RELEASE but instead use the "install from scratch" method about a few > weeks after a new RELEASE is published. So since the package system is > also re-build a new for each new RELEASE, I am all ways in sync. Now > there are exceptions to using packages. In my case php5 was changed 3 > RELEASES ago to no longer contain the apache module, so I now have to > compile php5 from the port. But to short cut the compile process, I > pre-install all of php5's dependents as packages. And of course I had to > figure out who they all were by hand the first time and built a script > that automates the whole procedure. I use cvsup at NEW RELEASE time to > populate the empty ports tree with ports-base. Then I use cvsup to > checkout the php5 make files and them "make install" and everything > comes together just fine.
Why not build packages in-house then? You've already assumed the bootstrapping cost of a full ports tree checkout to do the dependency scan for php5 -- why not build the binary package (with your relevant make options) there as well? Then the rest of your machines can install *everything* from packages, and therefore won't require *any* of the ports tree, not even some subset of exceptions that need to be compiled. This would save even more resources, since you only compile php5 once, rather than once per machine. -- Benjamin Lee http://www.b1c1l1.com/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
