| 1 |
On 10/02/2021 18:57, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm announcing a new project here - "binhost" |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> "The Gentoo Binhost project aims to provide readily installable, precompiled |
| 7 |
> packages for a subset of configurations, via central binary package hosting. |
| 8 |
> Currently we are still in the conceptual planning stage. " |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Binhost |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If you're interested in helping out, feel free to add yourself on the wiki |
| 13 |
> page. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Note that I see actually *building* the packages not as the central point of |
| 16 |
> the project (that could be e.g. a side effect of a tinderbox). I'm more |
| 17 |
> concerned about |
| 18 |
> * what configurations should we use |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Others have already suggested starting with a minimal set of flags or |
| 21 |
starting with the profiles, and then adding flags at request. I would |
| 22 |
like to suggest the opposite approach, start with binpkgs of packages |
| 23 |
which have all or most of the flags enabled, and then add more |
| 24 |
specific/minimal configurations of that package later. Because from an |
| 25 |
user perspective it is less of a problem to install a binpkg which has |
| 26 |
more features than you need, than it is to install a binpkg which is |
| 27 |
lacking a certain feature you need. Therefore, I would start with |
| 28 |
configurations of packages that have most/all things enabled, and thus |
| 29 |
are usable for the largest amount of people. This would pull in more |
| 30 |
dependencies, but for binpkgs this is less of a problem since they don't |
| 31 |
add compile time. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> * what portage features are still needed or need improvements (e.g. binpkg |
| 34 |
> signing and verification) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I think a bugtracker for this might be a good idea at some point. In |
| 37 |
general, I think that portage's binpkg support is very good already, |
| 38 |
there are however some things that could be improved. Bug |
| 39 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/687668 comes to mind (and some other things that |
| 40 |
were already mentioned by others). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
The wiki guide on binpkgs[1] also mentions that: |
| 43 |
""" |
| 44 |
The support for multiple binary package servers is somewhat incomplete. |
| 45 |
If several servers serve a binary package for the same package version, |
| 46 |
then only the first one will be considered. This can be problematic when |
| 47 |
these binary packages differ in their USE variable configuration and the |
| 48 |
USE variable configuration of a later binary package would match the |
| 49 |
systems configuration. |
| 50 |
""" |
| 51 |
I don't know if this is still accurate, but if it is that would |
| 52 |
definitely be something that could use some improvement. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Binary_package_guide |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> * how should hosting look like |
| 57 |
> * and how we can test this on a limited scale before it goes "into production" |
| 58 |
> * ... |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> Comments, ideas, flamebaits? :D |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> Cheers, |
| 63 |
> Andreas |
| 64 |
> |
Archives