Hi, On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:21, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 14:37, Ramon van Alteren <ra...@vanalteren.nl> wrote: >> This list seems to have woken up suddenly again, good news :) > About time, I should say...
Yeah :) > > There have been.... let's say, 'doubts' as to the suitability of > Gentoo as servers. And they are well-founded in many cases IMHO, not many shops have the expertise and the guts to deal with a moving target such as the portage tree is and it will bite them eventually. On top of that I think there are very few shops that need the flexibility and malleability of gentoo. So that seems like a nice fit. I have always viewed gentoo as a developers distro which allows you to stay on the bleeding edge with as little effort as possible. If you do not need that functionality, use *fill in favorite distro name here* >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 00:12, la Bigmac <la_big...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> While I have a central emerge server (rsync) and sync all of my servers to >>> it I still manually update the packages. >>> >>> Example, openssh how should I be updating openssh on all of my servers other >>> than logging onto each one in turn and running emerge openssh. >> >> Puppet takes care of that for us and this is a major relief, having >> useflag support in the puppet gentoo package provider would be nice, >> but not really necessary. I'd prefer having useflag awareness in >> binpkgs and the ability to produce different binpkgs for different >> useflag sets in portage. > > So, do you think it will be wise to create a management tool > explicitly for Gentoo (with its quirks such as ~masks, USE flags, > portage/env, and so-on), or just rely on Puppet? No, i think it would pay off to take a look at adding a specific provider in puppet for portage that exposes more of the unique functionality of portage to the puppet manifest writer. Ramon van Alteren Senior System Engineer Hyves.nl
