Subject: Re: GWN's Portage Sync Etiquette
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.gentoo.user
Date: 2003-05-05 22:35:50 GMT (6 years, 8 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours and 33 minutes ago)
On Mon, 5 May 2003 16:36:00 -0400 Lee Fickenscher wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 01:07:31PM -0700, Jim Bowlin wrote: > > On Monday 05 May 2003 07:14 am, Lee Fickenscher wrote: > > > > I think you are right. I was looking for a non-NFS solution because > > NFS seemed to be a bit of a PIA. I think it is safe to mount > > /usr/portage/* read-write if you want any of the boxen to perform > > an rsync. I am pretty sure emerge rsync is the only thing touching > > /usr/portage (excluding distfiles). All of the writing and > > bookkeeping is under /var/. > > If you are right, then it would be all that much simpler as you > wouldn't have to run a rsync service. NFS would definitely be the way > to go and reading through the docs, NFS doesn't seem any harder to set > up than FTP. You could just cron a rsync on one of the machines for > once a day and the portage tree for all your machines would be up to > date. > > Can any gentoo dev verify that it is safe to export/NFS mount > /usr/portage if different arches are involved? I have both athlon and > pentium systems on my network. Not a gentoo dev, but I'm using a NFS mounted portage tree here for 2 months or so. /usr/portage is read-only for the clients, /usr/portage/distfiles and /usr/portage/packages/$HOST is read-write. The server syncs once per day. Didn't have any problems yet. The clients include Duron and Celeron, with specific -march. Hope that helps Marius -- gentoo-user <at> gentoo.org mailing list