From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QOtBz-0001Ye-Dg for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 15:06:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5EB91C5C3 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 15:06:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vx0-f181.google.com (mail-vx0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3FE1C567 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vxb39 with SMTP id 39so6043218vxb.40 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.183.164 with SMTP id en4mr2743217vdc.108.1306245999161; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.158.163 with HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:06:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [94.100.112.225] In-Reply-To: References: From: Ramon van Alteren Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:06:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] Managing multiple servers. To: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 1fefb04f0407b1a1539b4ef12d4216f5 Hi, On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:21, Pandu Poluan wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 14:37, Ramon van Alteren wr= ote: >> 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 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, =C2=A0havin= g >> 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