[gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage

[gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage

[m h]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 814 bytes --]

Hello-

I'm investigating the similarities between portage and openpkg. More 
specifically I was wondering if it is possible to take portage and install 
in on top of an existing linux installation in its own sandbox (similar to 
what openpkg does). I've done some googling and found the documentation 
about the gentoo sandbox (http://bugday.gentoo.org/sandbox.html), but this 
seems to be a tool for checking that ebuilds behave correctly. I've read 
through the developer documentation and didn't find anything there. Google 
hasn't necessarily been very useful either....

So, is it possible to sandbox a portage installation on top of say a debian 
or fedora install? If so, can anyone point me in the right direction?
Do any of the devs out here have experience with openpkg?

thanks

matt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 936 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1645 bytes --]

Icky on the html email :P

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:45:16PM -0700, m h wrote:
> Hello-
> I'm investigating the similarities between portage and openpkg.  More
> specifically I was wondering if it is possible to take portage and
> install in on top of an existing linux installation in its own sandbox

s/sandbox/prefix/
This is what fink does, and what gentoo-osx is moving towards.


> (similar to what openpkg does).  I've done some googling and found the
> documentation about the gentoo sandbox
> ([1]http://bugday.gentoo.org/sandbox.html), but this seems to be a
> tool for checking that ebuilds behave correctly.

Moreso protection, then ensuring they behave correctly; if they do 
something they shouldn't they get blocked from what they're 
attempting.  It's an active tool, rather then a 'check' of the ebuild 
(that and it's limited to linux, no *bsd implementations).

Akin to depriving, although depriving is more effective- one can 
sidestep the sandbox, can't sidestep being de-prived aside from priv 
escalation.


> I've read through
> the developer documentation and didn't find anything there.  Google
> hasn't necessarily been very useful either....
> So, is it possible to sandbox a portage installation on top of say a
> debian or fedora install?  If so, can anyone point me in the right
> direction?

With current ebuilds, nope.  There's no global prefix offset in the 
code for it (root is merge offset, not runtime prefix offset).


> Do any of the devs out here have experience with openpkg?

Pretty much an extension of rpm spec's, afaik.
Beyond that? Heh, nope :)
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage

[m h]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1179 bytes --]

Thanks for the response, I guess I'll post to the osx mailing list, but 
really my issue isn't about osx per se, but taking the osx portage port and 
making it run on any posix system (solaris, osx, flavors of linux etc) in a 
sandboxed environment.

> I've read through
> > the developer documentation and didn't find anything there. Google
> > hasn't necessarily been very useful either....
> > So, is it possible to sandbox a portage installation on top of say a
> > debian or fedora install? If so, can anyone point me in the right
> > direction?
> 
> With current ebuilds, nope. There's no global prefix offset in the
> code for it (root is merge offset, not runtime prefix offset).
> 

The osx port runs with the same ebuilds as the main portage tree right?

> Do any of the devs out here have experience with openpkg?
> 
> Pretty much an extension of rpm spec's, afaik.
> Beyond that? Heh, nope :)


The basic idea is you bootstrap an environment on an existing system, and 
then build rpm's on top of that. It would be nice to take advantage of 
Gentoo's larger component tree (openpkg has ~400 items) as well as the 
larger gentoo community.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1590 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage

[m h]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1878 bytes --]

Browsing around on the osx list led me back to the archives of this list 
(may) for the "new glep draft: Portage as a secondary package manager" 
novel. Is this effort going anywhere? I could probably devote as much as a 
week to creating a proof of concept (don't know if that will be enough 
time), but would like to collaborate with others interested in this. I'm not 
very familiar with the inner workings of portage (just a happy gentoo user 
since 2002), but I am comfortable with bash and python and have read the 
developers documentation.

Thoughts, comments?

On 9/8/05, m h <sesquile@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the response, I guess I'll post to the osx mailing list, but 
> really my issue isn't about osx per se, but taking the osx portage port and 
> making it run on any posix system (solaris, osx, flavors of linux etc) in a 
> sandboxed environment.
> 
> > I've read through
> > > the developer documentation and didn't find anything there. Google 
> > > hasn't necessarily been very useful either....
> > > So, is it possible to sandbox a portage installation on top of say a
> > > debian or fedora install? If so, can anyone point me in the right
> > > direction? 
> > 
> > With current ebuilds, nope. There's no global prefix offset in the
> > code for it (root is merge offset, not runtime prefix offset).
> > 
> 
> The osx port runs with the same ebuilds as the main portage tree right?
> 
> > Do any of the devs out here have experience with openpkg?
> > 
> > Pretty much an extension of rpm spec's, afaik. 
> > Beyond that? Heh, nope :)
> 
> 
> The basic idea is you bootstrap an environment on an existing system, and 
> then build rpm's on top of that. It would be nice to take advantage of 
> Gentoo's larger component tree (openpkg has ~400 items) as well as the 
> larger gentoo community.
> 
> 
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2569 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Comparing Openpkg with portage

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1213 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2005 21:56 schrieb ext m h:
> Browsing around on the osx list led me back to the archives of this list
> (may) for the "new glep draft: Portage as a secondary package manager"
> novel. Is this effort going anywhere? I could probably devote as much as
> a week to creating a proof of concept (don't know if that will be enough
> time), but would like to collaborate with others interested in this. I'm
> not very familiar with the inner workings of portage (just a happy gentoo
> user since 2002), but I am comfortable with bash and python and have read
> the developers documentation.

I'm also interested in this since I'm searching for a way to install 
software into an AFS filesystem for easy distribution. But this has special 
requirements (rw path vs. ro path). Of course, I'd like to do it the 
"Gentoo Way(tm)".

Bye...

	Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Hambornerstraße 55      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
D-40472 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]