[gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Ashish Gawarikar]

Hello,

I just started using gentoo a few days back, and I have started to like 
it immensly. I like the emerge/ebuild packaging system.
I had a question in regards to packaging, I am planning to include 
multiple ebuilds into one big ebuild and when I emerge that big ebuild,
it should emerge all the packages it contains. For example:

dummy-1.0.0.ebuild contains

foo-1.0.0.ebuild and
bar-1.0.0.ebuild

I tried calling in the src_install of dummy-1.0.0.ebuild,
emerge foo-1.0.0.ebuild
but it gives access denied error saying trying to open_wr: 
/var/log/emerge.log

Is there a way I can achieve what I am trying to do.

All the help is appreciated,

Thanks in advance,

Ashish Gawarikar

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[George Shapovalov]

Hi Ashish.

See kde-base/kde-xxx.ebuild. In short just put all these packages as 
dependencies into this "meta" package. Plus be sure to keep it in your 
overlay (see make.conf). 

Also, please use gentoo-user mailing list for questions such as this. This 
list is for discussions of portage development.

George


On Tuesday 12 October 2004 11:56, Ashish Gawarikar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just started using gentoo a few days back, and I have started to like
> it immensly. I like the emerge/ebuild packaging system.
> I had a question in regards to packaging, I am planning to include
> multiple ebuilds into one big ebuild and when I emerge that big ebuild,
> it should emerge all the packages it contains. For example:
>
> dummy-1.0.0.ebuild contains
>
> foo-1.0.0.ebuild and
> bar-1.0.0.ebuild
>
> I tried calling in the src_install of dummy-1.0.0.ebuild,
> emerge foo-1.0.0.ebuild
> but it gives access denied error saying trying to open_wr:
> /var/log/emerge.log
>
> Is there a way I can achieve what I am trying to do.
>
> All the help is appreciated,
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ashish Gawarikar
>
> --
> gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Ashish Gawarikar]

Hi George and all,

Thanks for the quick reply. I will post my next questions on gentoo-user 
mailing list.
Though I wish to do something similar to the kde-base, that might not 
solve the problem that I have.

I am trying to have a one-meta-package,  that contain the other 
packages, but I would not be exposing the other
packages on my download site. For example:

foo-1.0.0.ebuild will not be available to be downloaded from the 
download site, and even bar-1.0.0.ebuild.
They will be only available in the dummy-1.0.0.ebuild.

The kde-base has dependencies on the other kde-packages, and downloads 
them "independently" from the download site,
as they are exposed "independently".

My goal is to download one-meta-package, that has other packages 
self-contained. On the rpm side of the world
"rpm of rpms", so that I dont have to mantain the other packages on my 
download site, and one package download
will contain all the dependent packages within.

Thanks again,

Ashish


George Shapovalov wrote:

>Hi Ashish.
>
>See kde-base/kde-xxx.ebuild. In short just put all these packages as 
>dependencies into this "meta" package. Plus be sure to keep it in your 
>overlay (see make.conf). 
>
>Also, please use gentoo-user mailing list for questions such as this. This 
>list is for discussions of portage development.
>
>George
>
>
>On Tuesday 12 October 2004 11:56, Ashish Gawarikar wrote:
>  
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I just started using gentoo a few days back, and I have started to like
>>it immensly. I like the emerge/ebuild packaging system.
>>I had a question in regards to packaging, I am planning to include
>>multiple ebuilds into one big ebuild and when I emerge that big ebuild,
>>it should emerge all the packages it contains. For example:
>>
>>dummy-1.0.0.ebuild contains
>>
>>foo-1.0.0.ebuild and
>>bar-1.0.0.ebuild
>>
>>I tried calling in the src_install of dummy-1.0.0.ebuild,
>>emerge foo-1.0.0.ebuild
>>but it gives access denied error saying trying to open_wr:
>>/var/log/emerge.log
>>
>>Is there a way I can achieve what I am trying to do.
>>
>>All the help is appreciated,
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>Ashish Gawarikar
>>
>>--
>>gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>>    
>>
>
>
>--
>gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>  
>


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 436 bytes --]

On Tuesday 12 October 2004 21:10, George Shapovalov wrote:
> Hi Ashish.
>
> See kde-base/kde-xxx.ebuild. In short just put all these packages as
> dependencies into this "meta" package. Plus be sure to keep it in your
> overlay (see make.conf).

You might also want to try the sets feature in the new portage releases.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[George Shapovalov]

On Tuesday 12 October 2004 13:02, Ashish Gawarikar wrote:
> I am trying to have a one-meta-package,  that contain the other
> packages, but I would not be exposing the other
> packages on my download site. For example:
>
> foo-1.0.0.ebuild will not be available to be downloaded from the
> download site, and even bar-1.0.0.ebuild.
> They will be only available in the dummy-1.0.0.ebuild.
[skip]
> My goal is to download one-meta-package, that has other packages
> self-contained. On the rpm side of the world
> "rpm of rpms", so that I dont have to mantain the other packages on my
> download site, and one package download
> will contain all the dependent packages within.

Hm, I am afraid there is no trivial way to do this, short of collating 
contents of all these packages in a single ebuild. However this:
1. is ugly
2. will not work if there are interdependencies within this set of packages

Well, it should be possible if you split this package in two (and if it is 
only the downloading part that you want to combine): 
one downloads and unpacks the meta-tarball that you package yourself (should 
have src_unpack placing extracted individual tarballs into ${D}/${DISTDIR} 
and empty scr_compile/install)
second just lists the dependencies as mentioned before.

Although I fail to see why would you want to do something like that. I mean 
what is the situation when it is better to roll your own meta tarballs rather 
than fetch individual ones? Well, bittorrent will be more efficient with 
single large package rather than multiple small ones, but other than that I 
am quite puzzled :).

George


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 411 bytes --]

On 10/12/04  Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> On Tuesday 12 October 2004 21:10, George Shapovalov wrote:
> > Hi Ashish.
> >
> > See kde-base/kde-xxx.ebuild. In short just put all these packages as
> > dependencies into this "meta" package. Plus be sure to keep it in
> > your overlay (see make.conf).
> 
> You might also want to try the sets feature in the new portage
> releases.

Not implemented yet (AFAIK).

Marius

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[ashish gawarikar]

>Hm, I am afraid there is no trivial way to do this, short of collating 
>contents of all these packages in a single ebuild. However this:
>1. is ugly
>2. will not work if there are interdependencies within this set of packages
>  
>
That is the exactly why I doing this. We plan to deploy the packages 
included that have right interdependencies.

>Well, it should be possible if you split this package in two (and if it is 
>only the downloading part that you want to combine): 
>one downloads and unpacks the meta-tarball that you package yourself (should 
>have src_unpack placing extracted individual tarballs into ${D}/${DISTDIR} 
>and empty scr_compile/install)
>second just lists the dependencies as mentioned before.
>
>  
>
so you mean something like
dummy-download-1.0.0.ebuild => contains foo/bar etc
dummy-extract-1.0.0.ebuild => something like kde-base?

>Although I fail to see why would you want to do something like that. I mean 
>what is the situation when it is better to roll your own meta tarballs rather 
>than fetch individual ones? Well, bittorrent will be more efficient with 
>single large package rather than multiple small ones, but other than that I 
>am quite puzzled :).
>
>  
>

The advantage of doing this is viz:

1. QA has to test one huge download and dont have to test different 
scenarios.
2. You exactly know what packages you are getting in this download
3. You have to issue one-and-only-one command for upgrade


Thanks for all your help,

Ashish

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Nick Dimiduk]

ashish gawarikar wrote:
> The advantage of doing this is viz:
> 
> 1. QA has to test one huge download and dont have to test different 
> scenarios.
> 2. You exactly know what packages you are getting in this download
> 3. You have to issue one-and-only-one command for upgrade
> 

Why not script emerge commands together?  Once the packages are 
installed, they will easily be updated along with the rest of the system 
with an `emerge world`.  This way the packages and their deps are all 
accounted for.

-Nick Dimiduk

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Colin Kingsley]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:00:32 -0700, ashish gawarikar
<ashish@sendmail.com> wrote:
> That is the exactly why I doing this. We plan to deploy the packages
> included that have right interdependencies.
Portage handles dependencies. You dont need to install everything in
one package to satisfy deps, thats what the DEPEND variable is for.

> The advantage of doing this is viz:
> 
> 1. QA has to test one huge download and dont have to test different
> scenarios.
What?

> 2. You exactly know what packages you are getting in this download
No better than you would if you did things kde-base style.

> 3. You have to issue one-and-only-one command for upgrade
Already the case. I think portage is a lot more advanced than you realise.

But maybe I misunderstand you.


Colin

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[George Prowse]

On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 21:00, ashish gawarikar wrote:
> The advantage of doing this is viz:
> 
> 1. QA has to test one huge download and dont have to test different 
> scenarios.
If the dependencies that have been added to the package get updates at
different times (which they invariably will) then as soon as you install
it you will already have an out-of date system and have to revert back
to portage to update, you may as well have used portage to begin with

> 2. You exactly know what packages you are getting in this download
The exact dependency packages that you are getting are already listed in
the ebuild

> 3. You have to issue one-and-only-one command for upgrade
You can already just update all the packages on your system with 1
command.
-- 
George Prowse <cokehabit2003@yahoo.co.uk>


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[George Shapovalov]

On Tuesday 12 October 2004 14:36, Colin Kingsley wrote:
> > 3. You have to issue one-and-only-one command for upgrade
> Already the case. I think portage is a lot more advanced than you realise.
I suspect you meant to say "portage is more advanced than I think you 
realise" ;).

Anyway, Ashish: 
from your description it seems to me that you are thinking about rolling a 
well defined identical and tested installation on a bunch of PC's at some 
place. Is this right? There is no need for inventing anything for this 
purpose. Portage will handle the situation as it is already. The things you 
should look into if you want more controll over your large-scale installation 
are:

1. look into supporting a local portage tree and sync all local nodes against 
it

2. Have a testing rig where you install all updates first. Do so with 
--buildpkg option to roll pre-compiled packages (with all your local 
settings). Install on local nodes with --usepkg (there are short notations 
for both these options). Of course you can combine both 1 and 2 :).

See "man portage" and/or "portage --help" for more. Read portage docs on 
gentoo.org. Also scan through gentoo-user archives (use gmane.org) and search 
forums.gentoo.org. This whole topic was covered immense number of times..

George


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[George Shapovalov]

> 1. look into supporting a local portage tree and sync all local nodes
> against it
Or, if its an inner LAN segment and you are Ok with security, netmount portage 
off this central rig.

George


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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1230 bytes --]

On Tuesday 12 October 2004 23:00, ashish gawarikar wrote:

> The advantage of doing this is viz:
>
> 1. QA has to test one huge download and dont have to test different
> scenarios.

Downloading itself is hardly an issue. Believe me, we do enough support.


> 2. You exactly know what packages you are getting in this download

You can pin a dependency to a specific version. Say you have a meta-ebuild
mycompanysetup-1.0.1.ebuild and you pin it to depend on very specific 
versions of other ebuilds (up to the revision number).

> 3. You have to issue one-and-only-one command for upgrade

Updating this meta-ebuild will automatically update all dependencies as 
you have pinned down the versions you want. Note that ebuilds themselves 
(the build descriptions) are downloaded all together by rsync, or in case 
of a local overlay the way you decide to distribute it (CVS, subversion?, 
rsync). The source tarballs are checksummed and veryfied before use. 
Except the theoretical posibility of malice there is not much that can go 
wrong here. Just put the tarballs on a webserver and it works.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:40:58PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > You might also want to try the sets feature in the new portage
> > releases.
> 
> Not implemented yet (AFAIK).

/me wakes up

Sets feature? What's this (even if it isn't implemented yet)? Where can I
find more information? Any bugreports? Any threads on this ml that I've
missed?

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen


-- 
  Documentation & PR project leader

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 778 bytes --]

On Wednesday 13 October 2004 11:43, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:40:58PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > You might also want to try the sets feature in the new portage
> > > releases.
> >
> > Not implemented yet (AFAIK).
>
> /me wakes up
>
> Sets feature? What's this (even if it isn't implemented yet)? Where can
> I find more information? Any bugreports? Any threads on this ml that
> I've missed?

I have not tried it, but supposedly one can create files 
in /etc/portage/sets (similar in format to world) that get treated 
similarly to world or system. It's introduced in 51_pre, but I don't know 
whether it actually works.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Hello

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 943 bytes --]

On 10/13/04  Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> On Wednesday 13 October 2004 11:43, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:40:58PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > You might also want to try the sets feature in the new portage
> > > > releases.
> > >
> > > Not implemented yet (AFAIK).
> >
> > /me wakes up
> >
> > Sets feature? What's this (even if it isn't implemented yet)? Where
> > can I find more information? Any bugreports? Any threads on this ml
> > that I've missed?
> 
> I have not tried it, but supposedly one can create files 
> in /etc/portage/sets (similar in format to world) that get treated 
> similarly to world or system. It's introduced in 51_pre, but I don't
> know whether it actually works.

GLEP 21.
It's not implemented or introduced yet. You're probably confused by the
symlink statement for the worldfile in the postinst message of some
portage versions, there isn't _any_ functionality for this yet.

Marius

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

[gentoo-portage-dev] hello

[ferringb]

hello , I just wanted to share this opportunity with you, I've been making 200-300 dollars a day and I started only a week ago. Check out this news article and it will show you how to get started, it's definitely easy enough for you :)! http://g.msn.com.br/BR9/1369.0?http://news7cnbc.com/money