Am 26.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Edwardo Garcia:> On 12/26/14, Jeff Mitchell <jeffrey.mitchell at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 25, 2014 3:15 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: >>> >>> your Gentoo is nice in a small environment >>> >>> on larger setups someone is using binary packages and can setup his own >> repo with overrides while maintain *testable* setups >> >> Just to point out, it is possible to set up a binary Gentoo setup with a >> single server compiling packages then made available to downstream >> computers -- I ran such a setup for a few years. Can also have multiple of >> these in an overlay fashion for testing. Pros and cons vs. normal binary >> distros, but it can be done. > > As we do today for some 417 servers (real servers, not virtual crap), > its very easy to do, even my previous employer who used slackware with > a few hundred servers used almost identical fashion. > > Amazing at how rpm and deb users think they are the only ones in this > world who can manage large enterprise server farms, just shows how > narrow sighted and ill-informed they are.narrow sighted are people thinking others are ill-informed or as Benny thinking outdated RPM packages are a persistent problem not easily solveable sure, you can manage anything if you write enough tools to automate things, nothing new for me as software developer, but don't you think there is a reason why advanced package management exists and 95% of all production environments are uusing them? and if it is only to have a *formal verification* based on the rpm database that there are no dep errors and compare 100, 200, 1000 machine setups automated with a single click -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20141226/a27bd1e7/attachment.sig>
On 12/26/14, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> > Am 26.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Edwardo Garcia: >> On 12/26/14, Jeff Mitchell <jeffrey.mitchell at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Dec 25, 2014 3:15 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> your Gentoo is nice in a small environment >>>> >>>> on larger setups someone is using binary packages and can setup his own >>> repo with overrides while maintain *testable* setups >>> >>> Just to point out, it is possible to set up a binary Gentoo setup with a >>> single server compiling packages then made available to downstream >>> computers -- I ran such a setup for a few years. Can also have multiple >>> of >>> these in an overlay fashion for testing. Pros and cons vs. normal binary >>> distros, but it can be done. >> >> As we do today for some 417 servers (real servers, not virtual crap), >> its very easy to do, even my previous employer who used slackware with >> a few hundred servers used almost identical fashion. >> >> Amazing at how rpm and deb users think they are the only ones in this >> world who can manage large enterprise server farms, just shows how >> narrow sighted and ill-informed they are. > > narrow sighted are people thinking others are ill-informed or as Benny > thinking outdated RPM packages are a persistent problem not easily > solveable > > sure, you can manage anything if you write enough tools to automate > things, nothing new for me as software developer, but don't you think > there is a reason why advanced package management exists and 95% of all > production environments are uusing them?it takes no more than a few minutes to write a perl script to handle all. and you can not claim 95% of anything in real world, even if so, there is no difference to automated tools, than yum or apt, they can do the same thing and as every machine is identical, if work on dev box, there is no way it not work on production. its simple, if it is not work on rpm, erase rpm and use source. it is silly and time waste to try log bug problem with version not supported in years
Am 26.12.2014 um 17:16 schrieb Nick Edwards:> On 12/26/14, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: >> sure, you can manage anything if you write enough tools to automate >> things, nothing new for me as software developer, but don't you think >> there is a reason why advanced package management exists and 95% of all >> production environments are uusing them? > > it takes no more than a few minutes to write a perl script to handle all. > and you can not claim 95% of anything in real world, even if so, there > is no difference to automated tools, than yum or apt, they can do the > same thing and as every machine is identical, if work on dev box, > there is no way it not work on production.deployment yes versioned, clean downgrades and preserve permissions, get rid of obsolete files to keep the system clean over many years take more effort> its simple, if it is not work on rpm, erase rpm and use source. > > it is silly and time waste to try log bug problem with version not > supported in yearshence i recommended use rpmbuild and build a *override* from recent source, in case of dovecot just build from source may be easy, if it comes to dependencies rpm become the easier and safer way because it would refuse to override incompatible libraries until you take care of the dependencie tree which does not come from rpm itself but is managed by using it -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20141226/59ef219e/attachment.sig>