On 11/18/18 1:55 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:10 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseag...@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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
