Thierry Carrez wrote: >Hi folks, > >I would like to get your opinion on Enterprise-oriented desktop >deployment tools for Gentoo Linux (or the lack of). > >As a small company CIO, I deployed Gentoo on a small scale here but >quickly ran into scaling problems and the lack of tools to help. > >There is no obvious way to freeze a Portage tree (or to design a >specific profile) for testing on a golden workstation, > Why not? Just don't update the portage tree
> to build a set of >update packages (ServicePack) and push it to the workstations, or to >have centralized accountability of what's installed where. > set make.conf to point to a static tree stored somewhere which you update as time permits. You could even create an /etc/init.d script that would check for updates (emerge --sync) against your QA'ed frozen tree at each boot. >There is no >easy way to avoid having to keep a synchronized copy of the portage tree >on all systems, even when using yourown-binaries. > > see above >With automatic deployments, would we run into difficult-to-solve >etc-update problems ? Should/could the ServicePack system take care of >that ? > > etc-update would continue to be a problem >Even in a simpler setup (preprod > production) we don't have the tools >to push a software configuration change from a test machine to a >production one. > >What tools are missing ? Is it our job to provide them ? Can it >reasonably be done ? Am I just wrong to want to use Gentoo in that >direction ? > >Next week: Gentoo-as-a-metadistribution tools :) > > > I think most of the assumptions that you're making involve giving your user population root access. Don't Lock down your make.conf and only roll up update when you deem is neccassary using your internal tree. etc-update may still be an issue.... -- Omkhar Arasaratnam - Gentoo PPC64 Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://dev.gentoo.org/~omkhar Gentoo Linux / PPC64 Linux: http://ppc64.gentoo.org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
