1 |
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:10 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Replying off list because I am not on the whitelist. |
4 |
|
5 |
That seems odd. |
6 |
|
7 |
> 1) append a uuid to each filename. Generated when the bin package file is generated. |
8 |
> 2) encode the hostname of the machine that generated the file |
9 |
> 3) encode the use flags in the filename. |
10 |
|
11 |
So, I brought up this same issue in the earlier discussion and it was |
12 |
considered out of scope, and I think this is fair. The GLEP does not |
13 |
specify filename, and IMO the standard for what goes INSIDE the file |
14 |
will work just fine with any future enhancements that address exactly |
15 |
this use case. |
16 |
|
17 |
Besides your case of building for a cluster, another use case is |
18 |
having a central binary repo that portage could check and utilize when |
19 |
a user's preferences happen to match what is pre-built. |
20 |
|
21 |
I suggest we start a different thread for any additional discussion of |
22 |
this use case. I was thinking and it probably wouldn't be super-hard |
23 |
to actually start building something like this. But, I don't want to |
24 |
derail this GLEP as I don't see any reason designing something like |
25 |
this needs to hold up the binary package format. Both the existing |
26 |
and proposed binary package formats will encode any metadata needed by |
27 |
the package manager inside the file, and the only extension we need is |
28 |
to encode identifying info in the filename. |
29 |
|
30 |
My idea is to basically have portage generate a tag with all the info |
31 |
needed to identify the "right" package, take a hash of it, and then |
32 |
stick that in the filename. Then when portage is looking for a binary |
33 |
package to use at install time it generates the same tag using the |
34 |
same algorithm and looks for a matching hash. If a hit is found then |
35 |
it reads the complete metadata in the file and applies all the sanity |
36 |
checks it already does. Generating of binary packages with the hash |
37 |
cold be made optional, and portage could also be configured to first |
38 |
look for the matching hash, then fall back to the existing naming |
39 |
convention, so that it would be compatible with existing generic |
40 |
names. So, users would get a choice as to whether they want to build |
41 |
up a library of these packages, or just have each build overwrite the |
42 |
last. |
43 |
|
44 |
Then the next step would be to allow these files to be fetched from a |
45 |
binary repo optionally, and then finally we'd need tools to create the |
46 |
repo. But, this step isn't needed for your use case. With the proper |
47 |
optional switches you could utilize as much of this scheme as you |
48 |
like. |
49 |
|
50 |
Also, you could optionally choose how much you want portage to encode |
51 |
in the tag and look for. Are you very fussy and only want a binary |
52 |
package with matching CFLAGS/USE/whatever? Or is just matching |
53 |
USE/arch/etc enough? Some of the existing portage options could |
54 |
potentially be re-used here. |
55 |
|
56 |
Please make any replies in a new thread. |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
Rich |