Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] prefix portage chaining
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 14:14 +0100, Markus Duft wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:00 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 20-03-2009 11:35:09 +0100, Markus Duft wrote: > > > i'll try and explain what i want in the first place: i'm porting things > > > to native windows. since windows isn't too cooperative, i'm unable to > > > merge most things (and with other things, i simply don't want to), and > > > thus i need to take those things from somewhere else (more or less the > > > complete @system). I _am_ able to build all those things for interix > > > (which is the host system in the windows case). So what i want is a > > > setup of two prefix instances with a certain relation to each other: the > > > native windows prefix should be able to recognize installed packages > > > from the other instance, and resolve dependencies by eventually using > > > the other .../var/db/... > > > > Since Windows and Interix seem to be two different things to me, can you > > explain why in this case Portage can resolve the dependencies from the > > Interix system to use for the Windows system? What dependencies are we > > talking about? Build tools? Libraries? Runtime dependencies? > > i'm using it to resolve DEPEND atoms only. of course my notion of valid > DEPENDs and RDEPENDs is influenced by this, and i'm alergic against > RDEPEND=$DEPEND and such :) since it doesn't work in this setup. however > right now most things i need don't make too much problems. > > > > > > This could be (and is) quite usefull for all other platforms too. For > > > exmaple i could use prefix chaining on a linux box. I could create a > > > prefix containing a base system, and then for testing of > > > i-don't-know-whatever, i could create another small prefix inheriting > > > all installed packages from the other one. this way new prefixes can > > > stay very slim, but still the "parent" prefix is not altered on merges. > > > > That potentially is useful, in the case where you want to upgrade a > > critical system package and test it out or something. Can't think of an > > example other than Portage itself for the moment, though. (And that one > > can be hairy, for instance if the vdb format changes NEEDED -> > > NEEDED.ELF.2) > > ++ :) > > > > > > one issue not handled by the current patch is, that prefixes can have > > > different CHOST/ARCH/... (which is the case with x86-interix and > > > x86-winnt for example). > > > > Then how does it work for you? > > as i said, i'm using DEPENDs only from the other prefix with the > different CHOST/ARCH. this works, since on interix i can execute windows > binaries, and vice versa (limited). > > the patch i proposed here and on gentoo-alt@ (btw. i have a fixed > version lying around since a few minutes ...) allows the user to set > which atoms should be resolve-able from the chain. for exmaple for > windows i'm doing this in /my/winnt/prefix/etc/make.conf: > > READONLY_EROOT=/my/interix/prefix:DEPEND > > on linux, if both prefixes are x86-linux for example i could to > in /my/prefix/two/etc/make.conf: > > READONLY_EROOT=/my/prefix/one:DEPEND,RDEPEND > > (btw. this forces PDEPENDs to merge in /my/prefix/two. i guess most of > the time this makes sense, since with a PDEPEND from a lib, i want the > PDEPEND package to link against this lib... you know what i mean? of > course PDEPEND can still be added to the above list...) > > (btw2. the name READONLY_EROOT is discussed on gentoo-alt@ already, so i > won't comment on it beeing cool/uncool here... ;) ) > > Cheers, Markus > > > > > > > \ While much of what you are talking about here mainly applies to prefix, it looks to me from glancing over the code that you might of solved a long standing problem in the embedded world with cross compiling via portage. 222895 If that is the case, then I owe you a beer. one about the size of a keg. -- Ned Ludd Gentoo Linux
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] prefix portage chaining
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:00 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 20-03-2009 11:35:09 +0100, Markus Duft wrote: > > i'll try and explain what i want in the first place: i'm porting things > > to native windows. since windows isn't too cooperative, i'm unable to > > merge most things (and with other things, i simply don't want to), and > > thus i need to take those things from somewhere else (more or less the > > complete @system). I _am_ able to build all those things for interix > > (which is the host system in the windows case). So what i want is a > > setup of two prefix instances with a certain relation to each other: the > > native windows prefix should be able to recognize installed packages > > from the other instance, and resolve dependencies by eventually using > > the other .../var/db/... > > Since Windows and Interix seem to be two different things to me, can you > explain why in this case Portage can resolve the dependencies from the > Interix system to use for the Windows system? What dependencies are we > talking about? Build tools? Libraries? Runtime dependencies? i'm using it to resolve DEPEND atoms only. of course my notion of valid DEPENDs and RDEPENDs is influenced by this, and i'm alergic against RDEPEND=$DEPEND and such :) since it doesn't work in this setup. however right now most things i need don't make too much problems. > > > This could be (and is) quite usefull for all other platforms too. For > > exmaple i could use prefix chaining on a linux box. I could create a > > prefix containing a base system, and then for testing of > > i-don't-know-whatever, i could create another small prefix inheriting > > all installed packages from the other one. this way new prefixes can > > stay very slim, but still the "parent" prefix is not altered on merges. > > That potentially is useful, in the case where you want to upgrade a > critical system package and test it out or something. Can't think of an > example other than Portage itself for the moment, though. (And that one > can be hairy, for instance if the vdb format changes NEEDED -> > NEEDED.ELF.2) ++ :) > > > one issue not handled by the current patch is, that prefixes can have > > different CHOST/ARCH/... (which is the case with x86-interix and > > x86-winnt for example). > > Then how does it work for you? as i said, i'm using DEPENDs only from the other prefix with the different CHOST/ARCH. this works, since on interix i can execute windows binaries, and vice versa (limited). the patch i proposed here and on gentoo-alt@ (btw. i have a fixed version lying around since a few minutes ...) allows the user to set which atoms should be resolve-able from the chain. for exmaple for windows i'm doing this in /my/winnt/prefix/etc/make.conf: READONLY_EROOT=/my/interix/prefix:DEPEND on linux, if both prefixes are x86-linux for example i could to in /my/prefix/two/etc/make.conf: READONLY_EROOT=/my/prefix/one:DEPEND,RDEPEND (btw. this forces PDEPENDs to merge in /my/prefix/two. i guess most of the time this makes sense, since with a PDEPEND from a lib, i want the PDEPEND package to link against this lib... you know what i mean? of course PDEPEND can still be added to the above list...) (btw2. the name READONLY_EROOT is discussed on gentoo-alt@ already, so i won't comment on it beeing cool/uncool here... ;) ) Cheers, Markus > >
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] prefix portage chaining
On 20-03-2009 11:35:09 +0100, Markus Duft wrote: > i'll try and explain what i want in the first place: i'm porting things > to native windows. since windows isn't too cooperative, i'm unable to > merge most things (and with other things, i simply don't want to), and > thus i need to take those things from somewhere else (more or less the > complete @system). I _am_ able to build all those things for interix > (which is the host system in the windows case). So what i want is a > setup of two prefix instances with a certain relation to each other: the > native windows prefix should be able to recognize installed packages > from the other instance, and resolve dependencies by eventually using > the other .../var/db/... Since Windows and Interix seem to be two different things to me, can you explain why in this case Portage can resolve the dependencies from the Interix system to use for the Windows system? What dependencies are we talking about? Build tools? Libraries? Runtime dependencies? > This could be (and is) quite usefull for all other platforms too. For > exmaple i could use prefix chaining on a linux box. I could create a > prefix containing a base system, and then for testing of > i-don't-know-whatever, i could create another small prefix inheriting > all installed packages from the other one. this way new prefixes can > stay very slim, but still the "parent" prefix is not altered on merges. That potentially is useful, in the case where you want to upgrade a critical system package and test it out or something. Can't think of an example other than Portage itself for the moment, though. (And that one can be hairy, for instance if the vdb format changes NEEDED -> NEEDED.ELF.2) > one issue not handled by the current patch is, that prefixes can have > different CHOST/ARCH/... (which is the case with x86-interix and > x86-winnt for example). Then how does it work for you? -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
