Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:18:35 +0800 From: Gregory Orange <gregory.orange@calorieking.com> To: Victor Sudakov <vas@mpeks.tomsk.su>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: binary upgrade of a remote box Message-ID: <53A7D4CB.1020606@calorieking.com> In-Reply-To: <20140620122400.GA26444@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> References: <20140620122400.GA26444@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Victor et al,
I am fascinated by what you've said, because noone near me uses FreeBSD,
and because I've built up how I administer it in one noticeably
different way to you.
On 20/06/14 20:24, Victor Sudakov wrote:
> I am comfortable with the "make world" method and have done this
> remotely before, but those boxes are too weak to compile their own
> world, and the disks are too small. Mounting /usr/{src,obj} from a
> remote host is not an option because of relatively slow and unreliable
> WAN links.
I have never done any of this, and as such certainly couldn't say I feel
comfortable with it...
> I am very uncomfortable with "freebsd-update upgrade", at least it's
> not something I would risk remotely.
whereas I do this regularly. I use 'freebsd-update cron' every night for
update checks, and have recently embarked on upgrading a fleet of 8.3
machines to 8.4 using 'freebsd-update -r 8.4-RELEASE upgrade', with
flawless results so far.
So, my question. Is one of the above (make world or freebsd-update)
considered by the community to be safer, more standard, or recommended?
Cheers,
Greg.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53A7D4CB.1020606>