Gentoo Archives: gentoo-embedded

From: Natanael Copa <mlists@××××××.org>
To: gentoo-embedded@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-embedded] mount /usr/portage considered harmful?
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:22:42
Message-Id: 1129188135.28522.22.camel@nc
In Reply to: [gentoo-embedded] mount /usr/portage considered harmful? by Joshua ChaitinPollak
1 On ons, 2005-10-12 at 18:14 -0400, Joshua ChaitinPollak wrote:
2
3 > The bottom line is, I blew away my host computer's /usr/portage, and
4 > now have to recover it.
5 >
6 > Since the development root filesystem is stored on a desktop machines
7 > harddrive, why not just have it get its own, separate portage tree?
8
9 This is how I deal with it:
10
11 * I never keep distfiles and binary packages in the /usr/portage (PKGDIR
12 and DISTFILES in/etc/make.conf) and use portage snapshots. Then its
13 possible to remove /usr/portage anytime and recover with just untarring
14 the snapshot. This is use ful if you have several people working on the
15 same project and you might want to work on the same portage tree.
16
17 * Always enter in my chroot environment from a script. The script mounts
18 proc and /usr/portage, chroot and then umounts everything again.
19
20 * In some occations I run a separate portage tree. (where the host's
21 portage tree is updated from a cron job)
22
23 --
24 Natanael Copa
25
26 --
27 gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-embedded] mount /usr/portage considered harmful? Joshua ChaitinPollak <jpollak@×××××××××××.com>