Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: Ron OHara <rono@×××××××××××.au>
Cc: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintaining production systems - and losing ebuilds
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:45:00
Message-Id: 1068644499.16749.21.camel@localhost
1 On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 22:45, Ron OHara wrote:
2 > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
3 >
4 > >On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 23:39, Ron OHara wrote:
5 > >
6 > >
7 > >>Chris Gianelloni wrote:
8 > >>
9 > >>
10 > >>
11 > >>>On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 22:46, Ron OHara wrote:
12 > >>>
13 > >>>
14 > >>>
15 > >>>
16 > >>>>Lisa Seelye wrote:
17 > >>>>
18 > >>>>
19 > >>>>
20 > >>>>
21 > >>>>
22 > >>>>>On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 22:00, Ron OHara wrote:
23 > >>>>>
24 > >>>>>
25 > >>>>>
26 > >>>>>
27 > >>>>>
28 > >>>>>
29 > >>>>>>Hi,
30 > >>>>>>
31 > >>>>>>I want to raise an issue resulting from my experience so far in using
32 > >>>>>>Gentoo as the basis of production systems. Some may ask why? - but
33 > >>>>>>basically 'portage' seems to offer the very best framework for ongoing
34 > >>>>>>maintenance/admin of systems, though it's not perfect in that role.
35 > >>>>>>
36 > >>>>>>
37 > >>>>>>
38 > >>>>>>
39 > >>>>>>
40 > >>>>>>
41 > >>>>>There are a couple things you may want to look into.
42 > >>>>>
43 > >>>>>First, have you considered setting up your own rsync repository?
44 > >>>>>Second, how about using PORTAGE_OVERLAY to save ebuilds.
45 > >>>>>
46 > >>>>>
47 > >>>>>
48 > >>>>>
49 > >>>>>
50 > >>>>>
51 > >>>>>
52 > >>>>>
53 > >>>>An rsync repository is another part of the production deployment issues,
54 > >>>>(especially for bandwidth issues) but ideally the overall process should
55 > >>>>not force me to duplicate the managment effort that already goes into
56 > >>>>maintaining the Gentoo portage 'repository'. That work is already being
57 > >>>>done so it seems silly to have to manually administer a downstream
58 > >>>>repository just to preserve 'old' ebuilds - and even then, the true
59 > >>>>repository of which ebuilds are needed for a specific system is held on
60 > >>>>that system .. not on another server.
61 > >>>>
62 > >>>>To a degree, the same thing applies to the PORTAGE_OVERLAY setting -
63 > >>>>that tree may be a suitable place to preserve older ebuilds that are
64 > >>>>being removed from the central portage, but I dont want to maintain it
65 > >>>>manually on hundreds of systems.
66 > >>>>
67 > >>>>
68 > >>>>
69 > >>>>
70 > >>>Two words...
71 > >>>
72 > >>>NFS mounts
73 > >>>
74 > >>>=]
75 > >>>
76 > >>>
77 > >>>
78 > >>>
79 > >>>>--
80 > >>>>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
81 > >>>>
82 > >>>>
83 > >>>>
84 > >>>>
85 > >>Hmmm ... NFS works when the systems are all nicely connected with
86 > >>bandwidth, but most of these will be unique nodes on a private microwave
87 > >>network (to avoid the local Telco charges .a.k.a 'gouging' - at $0.19
88 > >>per megabyte of traffic)
89 > >>
90 > >>
91 > >
92 > >That makes a big difference. In that case, I would run your own rsync
93 > >mirror for portage and have all the machines sync to your mirror. I
94 > >would also make a packages mirror, where you store your packages, and
95 > >have all the machines pull their packages from that site. That way
96 > >nothing gets added or removed from portage, except what you specifiy,
97 > >and you also get the added upgrade speed and ease of binary packages.
98 > >
99 > >
100 > >
101 > I am assuming the deployment of a private rsync mirror (and packages
102 > mirror) - BUT - the current setup removes .ebuilds unless I manually
103 > intervene. Something I want to avoid. I just want to accumulate ebuilds
104 > by default to match the exact version of compiled code on each box. Then
105 > any given machine can be recompiled if required, without regard to
106 > accessing an external repository.
107
108 Well, what I would do is have the rsync mirror *not* mirror the
109 "official" Gentoo tree into its rsync, but rather into the normal
110 /usr/portage. I would then manually move ebuilds for security fixes and
111 any upgrades I wanted into the rsync tree. The same would be true of
112 the packages. That way you only have *exactly* what you want and have
113 approved available to the client machines.
114
115 e.g. /usr/portage is normal portage tree, /usr/portage/packages is
116 normal package tree, /var/rsync/portage is YOUR portage tree. I would
117 publish the packages via a web server. The nice thing about this is
118 that you can standardize on quite a bit of packages. If you wanted
119 everyone using KDE, for example, you simply don't copy any of Gnome's
120 ebuilds to your /var/rsync/portage tree.
121
122 --
123 Chris Gianelloni
124 Developer, Gentoo Linux
125 Games Team
126
127 Is your power animal a pengiun?

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature