1 |
On 31 Jul 2008, at 15:12, Simon wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> Yes, your words about "dependency" and "flexibility" are valid, |
4 |
>> but this is also the most straightforward way to sync multiple |
5 |
>> machines at once. If you do need to emerge a package when the |
6 |
>> laptop is away from home then just --sync and it builds a portage |
7 |
>> tree at the "missing mountpoint" (if that makes sense). |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I'll consider that, but seriously, I've tried many ways, including |
10 |
> rsyncd, to sync portage on my computers and I've settled for |
11 |
> unison. Really, I like it for its simplicity of use and |
12 |
> maintenance and the fact that my host only has the ssh port open. |
13 |
> Sync'ing portage is not a problem, i'll explore different ways |
14 |
> along the way. Dont try to convince me of other ways, this one is |
15 |
> working (and I don't mind whatever downsides). |
16 |
> |
17 |
>> Great! I'm glad you're happy with this. You're NFS exporting a sub- |
18 |
>> directory of /usr/portage, then, in order to share the built |
19 |
>> packages? |
20 |
> |
21 |
> As said, no. I'm using a separate copy on each host, which is |
22 |
> sync'ed manually between those hosts. It may sound awful, but it |
23 |
> actually syncs my /home directory, as well as my /root dir (where I |
24 |
> keep important system stuff, like dev drivers source). |
25 |
|
26 |
No, that's fine. Whatever works for you. Basically, as you say, you |
27 |
want to keep it as transparent, seamless & automated as possible. |
28 |
Whatever does the trick. |
29 |
|
30 |
I would perhaps do some more investigation & start a new thread about |
31 |
distcc problems. |
32 |
|
33 |
Stroller. |