Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Chris Lieb <chris.lieb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Using portage through NFS
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:08:13
Message-Id: 498BB79D.8010105@gmail.com
1 I have read the guide on gentoo-wiki about setting up portage to work
2 over NFS[0] and have it mostly working. I have two issues that I would
3 like to work out:
4
5 1) I use sync-eix to update portage and my overlays (via layman). I
6 want the client to still be able to run sync-eix, but have it only run
7 `emerge --metadata` (no `emerge --sync` or `layman --sync ALL`). What
8 do I need to change in the eix-sync.conf? (Man, that's a long man page :) )
9
10 Better yet, since my overlays are all in the exported NFS filesystem
11 (hence, the eix database would be the same across all clients), is it
12 possible to export my eix cache by hardlinking it into the NFS share?
13 If so, how do I make the client's eix use this database instead of the
14 one at /var/cache/eix?
15
16 2) I use the buildpkg feature on both the server and the client since
17 the client can usually use the packages for its own installations
18 (getbinpkg). However, sometimes I require different use flags for the
19 client, but I still want to keep the package locally so I can restore it
20 later if I need to. I have the NFS share mounted ro to keep the client
21 from overwriting what is on the server, so I am guessing that portage
22 will throw some kind of error when it tries to save the package to disk.
23
24 I was thinking of getting around this by using some kind of union mount.
25 However, I don't understand how union mounts work or if they can be
26 used for my situation. What I would like is to have some directory,
27 lets say /var/lib/portage/packages, that I union mount on top of the
28 exported NFS share, at /mnt/nfs_portage/packages. I noticed in the
29 Portage w/ SquashFS/aufs howto[1], they used aufs to create a rw layer
30 on top of a ro SquashFS. This sounds kind of what I want, except it
31 appears that aufs is memory-backed instead of disk-backed. Is this so?
32 The clients are all strapped for memory, so a memory-backed fs won't be
33 feasible.
34
35 Does anyone have any ideas or details on how I might implement this?
36
37 Thanks,
38 Chris Lieb
39
40 [0] http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Sharing_Portage_over_NFS
41 [1] http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Squashed_Portage_Tree