On 11/18/18 1:55 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:10 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Replying off list because I am not on the whitelist.
> 
> That seems odd.
> 
>> 1) append a uuid to each filename. Generated when the bin package file is generated.
>> 2) encode the hostname of the machine that generated the file
>> 3) encode the use flags in the filename.
> 
> So, I brought up this same issue in the earlier discussion and it was
> considered out of scope, and I think this is fair.  The GLEP does not
> specify filename, and IMO the standard for what goes INSIDE the file
> will work just fine with any future enhancements that address exactly
> this use case.
> 
> Besides your case of building for a cluster, another use case is
> having a central binary repo that portage could check and utilize when
> a user's preferences happen to match what is pre-built.
> 
> I suggest we start a different thread for any additional discussion of
> this use case.  I was thinking and it probably wouldn't be super-hard
> to actually start building something like this.  But, I don't want to
> derail this GLEP as I don't see any reason designing something like
> this needs to hold up the binary package format.  Both the existing
> and proposed binary package formats will encode any metadata needed by
> the package manager inside the file, and the only extension we need is
> to encode identifying info in the filename.
> 
> My idea is to basically have portage generate a tag with all the info
> needed to identify the "right" package, take a hash of it, and then
> stick that in the filename.  Then when portage is looking for a binary
> package to use at install time it generates the same tag using the
> same algorithm and looks for a matching hash.  If a hit is found then
> it reads the complete metadata in the file and applies all the sanity
> checks it already does.  Generating of binary packages with the hash
> cold be made optional, and portage could also be configured to first
> look for the matching hash, then fall back to the existing naming
> convention, so that it would be compatible with existing generic
> names.  So, users would get a choice as to whether they want to build
> up a library of these packages, or just have each build overwrite the
> last.
> 
> Then the next step would be to allow these files to be fetched from a
> binary repo optionally, and then finally we'd need tools to create the
> repo.  But, this step isn't needed for your use case.  With the proper
> optional switches you could utilize as much of this scheme as you
> like.
> 
> Also, you could optionally choose how much you want portage to encode
> in the tag and look for.  Are you very fussy and only want a binary
> package with matching CFLAGS/USE/whatever?  Or is just matching
> USE/arch/etc enough?  Some of the existing portage options could
> potentially be re-used here.

We've already had this handled for a couple years now, via
FEATURES=binpkg-multi-instance.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac