From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25546 invoked by uid 1002); 10 Nov 2003 03:46:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 14623 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2003 03:46:55 -0000 Message-ID: <3FAF0A15.3020507@sentuny.com.au> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:46:29 +1100 From: Ron OHara User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Seelye Cc: Gentoo Dev References: <3FAEFF54.8010804@sentuny.com.au> <1068434944.22818.320.camel@lisa.thedoh.com> In-Reply-To: <1068434944.22818.320.camel@lisa.thedoh.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Wally-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintaining production systems - and losing ebuilds X-Archives-Salt: 84ff65d3-5b59-4ab7-9ebc-526d0791c6a4 X-Archives-Hash: 910855b0c02f27208a8694834b5b65fa Lisa Seelye wrote: >On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 22:00, Ron OHara wrote: > > >>Hi, >> >>I want to raise an issue resulting from my experience so far in using >>Gentoo as the basis of production systems. Some may ask why? - but >>basically 'portage' seems to offer the very best framework for ongoing >>maintenance/admin of systems, though it's not perfect in that role. >> >> > >There are a couple things you may want to look into. > >First, have you considered setting up your own rsync repository? >Second, how about using PORTAGE_OVERLAY to save ebuilds. > > > > An rsync repository is another part of the production deployment issues, (especially for bandwidth issues) but ideally the overall process should not force me to duplicate the managment effort that already goes into maintaining the Gentoo portage 'repository'. That work is already being done so it seems silly to have to manually administer a downstream repository just to preserve 'old' ebuilds - and even then, the true repository of which ebuilds are needed for a specific system is held on that system .. not on another server. To a degree, the same thing applies to the PORTAGE_OVERLAY setting - that tree may be a suitable place to preserve older ebuilds that are being removed from the central portage, but I dont want to maintain it manually on hundreds of systems. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list