| 1 |
BRM wrote: |
| 2 |
> And you're doing a typically manual process for updating all the systems - |
| 3 |
> update your server first, then any rsync clients. Fine& dandy if that is your |
| 4 |
> process - but it's not mine. I may update my laptop twice as often as the other |
| 5 |
> two, especially if I want to play with some software or try something out, or |
| 6 |
> fix a bug, or get a later version of KDE. The server gets updated may be once a |
| 7 |
> month, while the laptop is either once a month or at whim when I want something |
| 8 |
> that just came out. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It's not harder to do it this way, just a different method. The original rsync |
| 11 |
> script worked perfectly fine; the broken update I did when I lost it is what |
| 12 |
> started this whole thread. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> As the old saying goes - Different Strokes for Different Folks. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Ben |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Again, maybe I am missing something but it doesn't really matter how |
| 21 |
often you update. Some people sync their main server and test packages, |
| 22 |
upgrade some stuff figure out a few workarounds then later on sync the |
| 23 |
other machines against the main server. The portage tree may be days |
| 24 |
old on the main server by that time but at least you know what you are |
| 25 |
up against if you are updating a LOT of systems. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As you say tho, different strokes. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Dale |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
:-) :-) |
Archives