[gentoo-portage-dev] cloning systems across architectures

[gentoo-portage-dev] cloning systems across architectures

[Anthony Dodson]

Sorry if this is the wrong list for this question.

If I build a system, optimized for the architecture without room for
backwards compatibility, containing all the software I want, what's an easy
way to "clone" that build onto another machine with a different
architecture?

For instance, how can one move the definition of the "world" class to the
new machine (bootstrapped) and then emerge all that software at once?  Is
there a better approach?

(Sounds like Tal Peer's GLEP 21 proposal might just solve this, but how
could it be done now?)

Thanks,
Anthony Dodson

IMPORTANT WARNING: 
This e-mail is intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, the
disclosure of which is governed by applicable law. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this information in an unauthorized manner is
strictly prohibited. Sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by
any virus transmitted by this e-mail. If you receive this in error, please
notify the sender. 


--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] cloning systems across architectures

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

There are two possibilities:

- if the machines are identical, you can reuse the GRP in combination 
with the build plan representing the system which needs to be cloned
- otherwise, (on another platform, different architecture) one can take 
the 'requirements' for the first system and ask portage(-ng) to come up 
with a new configuration/build plan which provides an explanation 
(proof) for the requirements.

The first option is possible right now with portage if you pass the 
same USE and same packages to the emerge tool.

Best regards,

Pieter Van den Abeele


On 10 Mar 2004, at 21:44, Anthony Dodson wrote:

> Sorry if this is the wrong list for this question.
>
> If I build a system, optimized for the architecture without room for
> backwards compatibility, containing all the software I want, what's an 
> easy
> way to "clone" that build onto another machine with a different
> architecture?
>
> For instance, how can one move the definition of the "world" class to 
> the
> new machine (bootstrapped) and then emerge all that software at once?  
> Is
> there a better approach?
>
> (Sounds like Tal Peer's GLEP 21 proposal might just solve this, but how
> could it be done now?)
>
> Thanks,
> Anthony Dodson
>
> IMPORTANT WARNING:
> This e-mail is intended for the use of the person to whom it is 
> addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, the
> disclosure of which is governed by applicable law. Dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this information in an unauthorized manner 
> is
> strictly prohibited. Sender accepts no liability for any damage caused 
> by
> any virus transmitted by this e-mail. If you receive this in error, 
> please
> notify the sender.
>
>
> --
> gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>


--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] cloning systems across architectures

[George Shapovalov]

On Wednesday 10 March 2004 12:44, Anthony Dodson wrote:
> For instance, how can one move the definition of the "world" class to the
> new machine (bootstrapped) and then emerge all that software at once?  Is
> there a better approach?
So, you basically have two different systems and you want to optimize both (so 
no common denominator) or they are different arches,  meaning that you would 
rather recompile; but you would rather not mess with all the individual 
packages? Is this the situation?
Then yes, no need to go package by package:
1. clone your /etc/make.conf and adjust C[XX]FLAGS correspondingly (but keep 
USE definition identical)
2. copy /var/cache/edb/world over
3. do "emerge -[p]e world" or even simply "emerge world"

If your system as up for a while you might want to clean its contents first 
(you will be amazed at what you have accumulated over this time ;)). Oh and 
you might also want to run "emerge depclean -p" and add the packages from the 
listing it gives you that you think you will  want..

George


--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] cloning systems across architectures

[Jason Stubbs]

On Thursday 11 March 2004 08:25, George Shapovalov wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 March 2004 12:44, Anthony Dodson wrote:
> > For instance, how can one move the definition of the "world" class to the
> > new machine (bootstrapped) and then emerge all that software at once?  Is
> > there a better approach?
>
> So, you basically have two different systems and you want to optimize both
> (so no common denominator) or they are different arches,  meaning that you
> would rather recompile; but you would rather not mess with all the
> individual packages? Is this the situation?
> Then yes, no need to go package by package:
> 1. clone your /etc/make.conf and adjust C[XX]FLAGS correspondingly (but
> keep USE definition identical)
> 2. copy /var/cache/edb/world over
    (to a different directory)
> 3. do "emerge -[p]e world" or even simply "emerge world"
    emerge $(cat world)

Emerge now checks to see if a package listed in the world file is installed 
before doing anything with it. If it's not installed, it is skipped.

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] cloning systems across architectures

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1042 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-03-11, 10:46:55 +0900, in
<200403111046.55363.jstubbs@gentoo.org>, Jason Stubbs
<jstubbs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 11 March 2004 08:25, George Shapovalov wrote:
[snip]
> Emerge now checks to see if a package listed in the world file is
> installed before doing anything with it. If it's not installed, it is
> skipped.

I've noticed.

I can see three ways portage could respond to additions to the world
file:

	1. skip the added package
	2. install the added package
	3. abort due to state file inconsistency

Of the three, I would select #2. I would be hard-pressed to choose
between #1 and #3 as the lesser of two evils. My initial instinct is to
avoid arbitrary crashes, but if installing packages found in the world
file is dangerous, perhaps a stronger reaction may be in order.

Perhaps somebody could seed my memepool on this issue.

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]