| 1 |
Ricardo Loureiro wrote: |
| 2 |
> Usable in the way that the client machines should be able to use |
| 3 |
> portage, except it's the hacked (or new package) version that should |
| 4 |
> do everything from the SQL server. For example, a emerge package |
| 5 |
> would behave in 2 possible ways;1- calculate it's dependencies from |
| 6 |
> the portage tree on the SQL server and request the binary packages, |
| 7 |
> 2- Request the package and the server would calculate dependencies |
| 8 |
> and get the binary done. I'm more keen on the second since it takes |
| 9 |
> away processor time from the clients, but that involves sending |
| 10 |
> sensitive information such as world files and make.conf over the |
| 11 |
> network. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Sounds like in your setup you would like to keep a profile of the client |
| 14 |
on the server, so you don't have to send over that information, because |
| 15 |
it is already in the DBMS. That also allows you to update |
| 16 |
'push-driven', because the server can easily tell which clients have |
| 17 |
packages that are out of date. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives