From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 27 18:34:44 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC92989 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:34:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu) Received: from hergotha.csail.mit.edu (wollman-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:ccb::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F06F1887 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hergotha.csail.mit.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hergotha.csail.mit.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5RIYgT2048339; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:34:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by hergotha.csail.mit.edu (8.14.5/8.14.4/Submit) id r5RIYgdk048338; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:34:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:34:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <201306271834.r5RIYgdk048338@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: wblock@wonkity.com Subject: Re: portupgrade(1) | portmaster(8) -- which is more effective for large upgrade? In-Reply-To: References: <201306270505.r5R55RJD040660@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Organization: none X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (hergotha.csail.mit.edu [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:34:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hergotha.csail.mit.edu Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:34:44 -0000 In article , wblock@wonkity.com writes: >On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Garrett Wollman wrote: > >> Having just gone through this in two different environments, I can >> very very strongly recommend doing the following. It's not the "easy >> button" of the TV commercials, but it will make things much much >> easier in the future. > >This is an interesting procedure and should be made into a >web-accessible document! Setting up a build machine for a network is a >fairly common desire, and your procedure looks to be doing everything >the newest way. See . -GAWollman