| 1 |
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:38:11 +0200 |
| 2 |
Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Define "usable". As only portage uses the tree it would be the only |
| 5 |
> thing that might break. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Usable in the way that the client machines should be able to use |
| 8 |
portage, except it's the hacked (or new package) version that should |
| 9 |
do everything from the SQL server. For example, a emerge package |
| 10 |
would behave in 2 possible ways;1- calculate it's dependencies from |
| 11 |
the portage tree on the SQL server and request the binary packages, |
| 12 |
2- Request the package and the server would calculate dependencies |
| 13 |
and get the binary done. I'm more keen on the second since it takes |
| 14 |
away processor time from the clients, but that involves sending |
| 15 |
sensitive information such as world files and make.conf over the |
| 16 |
network. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> As far as I know, yes. But it wasn't what you wanted anyway (only |
| 19 |
> implemented a SQL cache for faster searching, interesting that |
| 20 |
> almost |
| 21 |
> every "rewrite" attempt implements searching first) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I asked because it would be nice to talk to their devs, so I could |
| 24 |
know in advance what were their problems and what they would have |
| 25 |
done different. Anyway the project will be different, as you said, |
| 26 |
but another goal was to produce a single machine mode that would use |
| 27 |
a relational database engine as portage tree. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I'd guess baselayout + it's deps + libc are the absolute minimum |
| 31 |
> (excluding baselayout-lite and other embedded solutions). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> > 4- Any ideas on how the conf files should be handled? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Depends on your client nodes, if they are (almost) identical I'd |
| 39 |
> just |
| 40 |
> sync them from a master node. If not it gets complicated. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
That's the problem, very different machines (and maybe some time |
| 43 |
later even arch's). The best way was to produce yet another |
| 44 |
etc-update, but 5 months for a single person is too little time for |
| 45 |
that. In general most of the times if the config files are not |
| 46 |
changed it's safe to overwrite, else don't, but sometimes pakcage |
| 47 |
versions have config files re-written, and that's a problem. Just |
| 48 |
wanted to know what you ppl do in these situations and maybe found |
| 49 |
something I was not aware of. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Anyway, I hope you realize that your project doesn't only involve |
| 53 |
> hacking on portage, but rewriting almost all of it for the client |
| 54 |
> part. |
| 55 |
> Actually I'd rather suggest you start from scratch (so you also |
| 56 |
> make it |
| 57 |
> work completely without a tree), or wait for Brians rewrite in HEAD |
| 58 |
> (not |
| 59 |
> a good idea though if you have a deadline). Server should be less |
| 60 |
> of an |
| 61 |
> issue, mostly config tweaks there. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
My initial thought was a from scratch portage in python that could |
| 64 |
use many of the code already done, that would be better since portage |
| 65 |
itself doesn't need a client-server mode and I could learn a lot more |
| 66 |
this way. Waiting is not an option, no pressure on other ppl and |
| 67 |
limited time for the project, but I hope to have the time to change |
| 68 |
it after the deadline as a personal hobbie. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
> But as Donnie said, gentoo-portage-dev is the better list for this |
| 71 |
> discussion. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Did already, thanks for your help already. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
Ricardo Loureiro |
| 77 |
-- |
| 78 |
http://pgp.dei.uc.pt:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6B7C0EC0 |
Archives