| 1 |
Hi |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I was wondering about having several portage trees to allow external |
| 4 |
distributor having repositories of packages. |
| 5 |
Recently, people have been talking in this list about the difficult proccess |
| 6 |
of making a deploy of their packages. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
As we know, Debian uses this. Everyone can add a new source of packages to get |
| 9 |
installed to the system in a clear way. Just by putting deb lines into the |
| 10 |
sources.list. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Now the portage have the possibility of using a different portage from |
| 13 |
PORTDIR_OVERLAY. |
| 14 |
It could be really useful, if we could use something like it |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In make.conf |
| 17 |
------ |
| 18 |
PORT_SOURCES="rsync://source1 rsync://source2" ( it also could be useful if |
| 19 |
ftp:// is allowed to ( mirror command ) because setup an ftp server is much |
| 20 |
easier than a rsync one for several reasons like permissions ;) ) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
PORT_SOURCES_DIR=/usr/local/portages/ |
| 23 |
------ |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So, after making an emerge rsync, we have: |
| 26 |
/usr/portage -> with the official gentoo portage mirror |
| 27 |
/usr/local/portages/source1 -> with the mirror of the source1 |
| 28 |
/usr/local/portages/source2 -> with the mirror of the source2 |
| 29 |
and so... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So, when implementing, it could be used as the PORTDIR_OVERLAY ( with several |
| 32 |
trees allowed ). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Is this too hard to implement? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I think it solves a lot of complains about flexibility and edging of Gentoo. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
BR. |
| 39 |
Byez |
Archives