| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 10:34:23PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 2 |
> The solution for these is a compile farm into which devs can log remotely and |
| 3 |
> build packages. Or it could just build them automatically. But all this would |
| 4 |
> be is an extended GRP set - I don't see the need for that. GRP for 1.4 is |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This is more an idea on how to help mirroring.. but I'll throw it into this discussion since it could |
| 7 |
also be used for sharing binary tarballs. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
How about someone creating an module that automatically shares the contents of /usr/portage/distfiles |
| 10 |
(or packages) over a peer to peer network like gnutella. |
| 11 |
Everytime someone trys to emerge a package, portage checks the peer network to see if someone |
| 12 |
has a binary package already built (with the same USE flags set) and if not it looks for a nearby |
| 13 |
copy of the tarball. This could be used to spread the ibiblio/oregonstate load out a bit... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This would be easpecially useful for places like my office, where we have several dozen gentoo |
| 16 |
workstations, and a mediocre 256kps SDSL internet link. Since they are all basically running the |
| 17 |
same hardware, and have the same use flags set the binary option could be used to speed installation |
| 18 |
of new packages. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The big drawback for the binaries is there is no guarentee they are what they say they are, unlike |
| 21 |
the tarballs that at least have the MD5 from the ebuild. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It would be an actual example of "significant non-infringing use" of a p2p network. ;-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Mark Farver |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of |
| 30 |
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." |
| 31 |
-- Justice Louis O. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives