| 1 |
On 1/19/18 9:45 AM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Bill Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 18/01/18 23:36, Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Anthony G. Basile posted on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:46:53 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> I'm trying to design an update system for many identical Gentoo systems. |
| 8 |
>>>> Using a binhost is obvious, but there are still problems with this |
| 9 |
>>>> approach. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> I'd suggest go for a semi diskless OS - boot them from one central image |
| 13 |
>> with an individual overlay filesystem with local customisations. NFS |
| 14 |
>> mount the common directories. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> you just have a one central host to build for and don't need to worry |
| 17 |
>> about portage everywhere. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> Worked ok with a small number of mythtv frontends. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> It doesn't work if you have a WAN; NFS needs low latencies between the NFS |
| 23 |
> server and the client or you will have a bad time. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Zac pretty much nailed the requirements in bug #644990. You should not |
| 28 |
need the portage tree at all, neither locally nor via any network |
| 29 |
filesystem. He mentions there that it is currently possible via "a |
| 30 |
dummy profile", but I'm not sure what he means by that yet or how to set |
| 31 |
one up. I'll read his bug #640318 and try to figure it out. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thanks guys, I'm glad people at least recognized the usefulness of such |
| 34 |
a possibility. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 38 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 39 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 40 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 41 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives