| 1 |
-- |
| 2 |
Edward Muller |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Sep 29, 2008, at 11:18 AM, "Sven Vermeulen" <swift@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Edward Muller |
| 7 |
> <emuller@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> You would of course want: |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> FEATURES="buildpkg" |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> in your make.conf |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> A possible architecture would be to have a development server (where |
| 15 |
> Gentoo is used as it is used mostly, i.e. source-builds, but with a |
| 16 |
> somewhat static portage tree), then a staging server with |
| 17 |
> FEATURES=buildpkg, then a testing server where you only install the |
| 18 |
> binaries (which were created on the staging server) and if the testing |
| 19 |
> is succesfull, proceed with the production server. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
We actually pull upstream portage into a git repository and merge only |
| 22 |
the packages that we need to merge into our production branch. This |
| 23 |
also allows us to test incoming packages for various levels of breakage. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We use a dedicated build system to compile the binaries used by our |
| 26 |
systems. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Of course, that would require some resources although virtualization |
| 30 |
> can help you a great deal. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Wkr, |
| 33 |
> Sven Vermeulen |
| 34 |
> |
Archives