| 1 |
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 22:11:34 -0500, waltdnes@××××××××.org wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'm trying to run a distccserver in a 32-bit VM on a 64-bit host, for |
| 4 |
> the benefit of my ancient 32-bit-only netbook. Yeah, "it'll work" using |
| 5 |
> the native 64-bit host OS. But any stuff that links against 32-bit |
| 6 |
> libraries is going to be sent back to the netbook to compile locally. |
| 7 |
> That defeats the whole purpose of distcc. This is why I want the 32-bit |
| 8 |
> VM to compile for the 32-bit Atom. Here's the launch script for the |
| 9 |
> 32-bit VM on the i3 machine... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I used to take a different approach. Instead of a VM I used a chroot |
| 12 |
that was a clone of the netbook, except that make.conf in the chroot |
| 13 |
included buildpkg in FEATURES and the netbook's make.conf have --usepkg in |
| 14 |
DEFAULT_OPTs. PKGDIR was an NFS share accessible to both. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Then I would simply emerge whatever I wanted in the chroot, then emerge it |
| 17 |
on the netbook. No messing around with distcc, which will always run some |
| 18 |
stuff on the local system, instead everything but unpacking the package |
| 19 |
tarballs was done in the VM. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This approach meant that I could easily script the build process for |
| 22 |
several systems, including a 486 box was running at the time. I later |
| 23 |
switched to using systemd containers instead of chroots. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny? |
Archives