1 |
I don't know if you know about this neither if it is a solution for you, but |
2 |
take a look at it :) |
3 |
|
4 |
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=755176#755176 |
5 |
|
6 |
Khammi |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
>From: "Sancho2k.net Lists" <lists@××××××××.net> |
10 |
>Reply-To: gentoo-server@l.g.o |
11 |
>To: gentoo-server@l.g.o |
12 |
>CC: gentoo-server@l.g.o |
13 |
>Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] Re: Gentoo build server |
14 |
>Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:11:21 -0700 (MST) |
15 |
> |
16 |
>Joby Walker said: |
17 |
> |
18 |
> >>>2) Not running 'emerge sync' from each server is actually harmful to |
19 |
>the |
20 |
> >>>server. You might be able to use 'emerge regen' to mitigate most of |
21 |
> >>>this, but I haven't investigated it that fully (since I switched from |
22 |
> >>>NFS /usr/portage to a BINHOST). |
23 |
> >> |
24 |
> >> Any chance you could expand on this more? It's starting to sound like |
25 |
>it |
26 |
> >> may be more difficult than expected to maintain a central |
27 |
> >> portage/package |
28 |
> >> source for all of our servers. |
29 |
> >> |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > An "emerge sync" runs a lot of maintenance on the /var/db/pkg and |
32 |
> > /var/cache/edb directories. As packages are relabeled or recategorized, |
33 |
> > "emerge sync" re-orgs your /var caches to reflect the new structure. If |
34 |
> > this maintenance doesn't happen you will start getting dependancy errors |
35 |
> > when trying to install a package. This happened to me with Perl. |
36 |
> |
37 |
>So, if each system should have emerge sync ran on it to keep these caches |
38 |
>in good shape, then /usr/portage will be updated on each host too. If the |
39 |
>administrators of these other hosts decide to (or forget the process), |
40 |
>they could bypass our package server and freely install from their own |
41 |
>local portage tree. |
42 |
> |
43 |
>But that might not be a real concern. As long as BINHOST is honored, |
44 |
>binary packages from the master server will still be used. /usr/portage |
45 |
>will be basically unused in this case, but still maintained. |
46 |
> |
47 |
>I guess we're just not lessening the need to avoid maintaining |
48 |
>/usr/portage on each host. Is there no way to do that? |
49 |
> |
50 |
>It might not be a big deal, if we make sure that our build server is the |
51 |
>source for these syncs. |
52 |
> |
53 |
>DS |
54 |
|
55 |
_________________________________________________________________ |