On 1/19/18 10:03 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 1/19/18 9:45 AM, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Bill Kenworthy <bi...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >> >>> On 18/01/18 23:36, Duncan wrote: >>>> Anthony G. Basile posted on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:46:53 -0500 as excerpted: >>>> >>>>> I'm trying to design an update system for many identical Gentoo systems. >>>>> Using a binhost is obvious, but there are still problems with this >>>>> approach. >>>>> >>> >>> I'd suggest go for a semi diskless OS - boot them from one central image >>> with an individual overlay filesystem with local customisations. NFS >>> mount the common directories. >>> >>> you just have a one central host to build for and don't need to worry >>> about portage everywhere. >>> >>> Worked ok with a small number of mythtv frontends. >>> >> >> It doesn't work if you have a WAN; NFS needs low latencies between the NFS >> server and the client or you will have a bad time. >> >> > > Zac pretty much nailed the requirements in bug #644990. You should not > need the portage tree at all, neither locally nor via any network > filesystem. He mentions there that it is currently possible via "a > dummy profile", but I'm not sure what he means by that yet or how to set > one up. I'll read his bug #640318 and try to figure it out. > > Thanks guys, I'm glad people at least recognized the usefulness of such > a possibility. >
Okay, I have a workable solution to my question. I was able to get binhost working with a portage tree containing ONLY /profiles and /eclass. That's 12MB and 2.8MB in size, respectively, and I can probably dump a bunch of the unused profile directories slimming that down. With just those two directories in PORTDIR, emerge -K pulls down the update packages from BINHOST and installs them. @zac any comments about this approach? Is it likely to break? -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
