| 1 |
Am Donnerstag, 18. Januar 2018, 12:46:53 CET schrieb Anthony G. Basile: |
| 2 |
> Hi everyone, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm trying to design an update system for many identical Gentoo systems. |
| 5 |
> Using a binhost is obvious, but there are still problems with this |
| 6 |
> approach. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Unless there's some magic I don't know about (and this is why I'm |
| 9 |
> sending this email) each machine still needs to have the portage tree |
| 10 |
> installed locally (1.5 GB) or somehow mounted by a network filesystem |
| 11 |
> (which is not practical if the machines are not on a local network). |
| 12 |
> Furthermore, each machine would have to run emerge locally to do the |
| 13 |
> calculation of what packages need updating. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This procedure is redundant because each machine is housing the same |
| 16 |
> data and doing the same dependence-tree calculation. It should be |
| 17 |
> possible to do this calculation on a centralized binhost and simply |
| 18 |
> communicate the update information to the remote machines. They would |
| 19 |
> then only have to download the .tbz2's and install them, keeping a tidy |
| 20 |
> /var/db/pkg. Thus they avoid having to house the portage tree and |
| 21 |
> burning cpu cycles that just calculate redundant information. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I'm inspired here by OpenBSD's pkg_add which doesn't require all of |
| 24 |
> ports to be installed, and mender which is a |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Any ideas? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
what about app-portage/portage-utils? AFAIK doesn't need a local portage |
| 29 |
tree... |
Archives