Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Emma Strubell <emma.strubell@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Google SoC and "cache sync"
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:02:01
Message-Id: 5a8c638a0904011801r271a7cfbt26981a9db61d2b04@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Google SoC and "cache sync" by Zac Medico
1 Zac Medico wrote:
2 > The way that I imagine the "cache sync" idea should be implemented
3 > is like paludis's "unavailable repository" which uses of tarball to
4 > distribute package metadata[1]. The tarball approach that they use
5 > seems pretty reasonable. However, it would probably also be nice to
6 > be able to use a protocol such as rsync to download the
7 > metadata/cache/ directory from the same URI which is used to fetch
8 > the ebuilds themselves (maybe paludis supports this already, I don't
9 > know).
10
11 You're offering two different ideas here, right? The "unavailable
12 repository" method, and the method using the metadata/cache/
13 directory?
14
15 If so, it makes sense to me to take the metadata/cache/ directory
16 route, since, as you said, multiple repositories aren't yet supported
17 in portage. At first I was thinking I could contact the guy who might
18 be working on multiple repository support this summer and work with
19 him to some extent... but the "unavaliable repository" solution would
20 basically be dependent on/building off of multiple repository support,
21 and it seems like building off of something that isn't fully built
22 would be a bad idea.
23
24 And to clarify: the goal of the project is to modify portage so that
25 instead of fetching all of the ebuilds in the portage tree (or in an
26 overlay) upon a sync, portage only fetches the metadata and cache info
27 (via the metadata/cache/ directory) of the tree, and the ebuilds of
28 packages that are already installed (packages found in the world
29 file?) And then, additional ebuilds would be fetched only when they
30 are needed? Or will only metadata/cache/ be fetched upon sync, and
31 then all ebuilds will be fetched only when they are needed? Am I
32 completely oversimplifying the project?
33
34 Thanks so much for your help,
35 Emma
36
37
38 On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
39 >
40 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
41 > Hash: SHA1
42 >
43 > Emma Strubell wrote:
44 > > Hi all.
45 > >
46 > > So, I'd love to do Google's Summer of Code with you guys. I was perusing
47 > > the list of ideas on the Gentoo wiki, and the "cache sync" idea seems
48 > > pretty interesting, especially since it concerns the overall speed of
49 > > portage, including search, which of course I've already started some
50 > > work on. However, there is no contact person associated with that
51 > > project! I figured I'd come here before going to #gentoo-soc to see if
52 > > anyone is interested in mentoring me on this project, since it seemed
53 > > like a few of you might be interested.
54 >
55 > The way that I imagine the "cache sync" idea should be implemented
56 > is like paludis's "unavailable repository" which uses of tarball to
57 > distribute package metadata[1]. The tarball approach that they use
58 > seems pretty reasonable. However, it would probably also be nice to
59 > be able to use a protocol such as rsync to download the
60 > metadata/cache/ directory from the same URI which is used to fetch
61 > the ebuilds themselves (maybe paludis supports this already, I don't
62 > know).
63 >
64 > In order for the clients to be able to download the metadata/cache/
65 > directory, first that directory has to be populated (as is done on
66 > gentoo's master rsync server). I'm currently working on a tool
67 > called 'egencache' that overlay maintainers will be able to use in
68 > order to populate the metadata/cache/ directory [2]. It will be
69 > included in the next portage release.
70 >
71 > Before we implement something like "unavailable repository" for
72 > portage, first we'll have to add multiple repository support, and
73 > that's a decent sized project of it's own. Somebody has mentioned
74 > interest in "multiple repository support" on the gentoo-soc list
75 > [3], but they haven't submitted a proposal to
76 > http://socghop.appspot.com yet.
77 >
78 > [1] http://paludis.pioto.org/configuration/repositories/unavailable.html
79 > [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=261377
80 > [3]
81 > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-soc/msg_e383863a6748e367e13fe53b092f3908.xml
82 > - --
83 > Thanks,
84 > Zac
85 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
86 > Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
87 >
88 > iEYEARECAAYFAknSnA4ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaO6tACgjzAsoXP0cJd0Vr1vJxU2CvLQ
89 > JtwAn2Sj+GxLyyRpOIdbejPirCljmF2c
90 > =k5u1
91 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
92 >

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Google SoC and "cache sync" Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Google SoC and "cache sync" Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>