Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2003 14:51 schrieb Stroller: > > I think, this would work, but that's not what I really want to do: > > editing > > world files, copying them here over and there over, everytime I update > > a > > desktop and/or the server. > > Well, of course you don't need to copy the files manually everytime. > There are lots of ways to do this: at 4:30pm every machine runs > something like: > `cat /var/cache/edb/world >> > //somemachine/NFS/share/world.othermachines` > Or: > `qpkg -I -v >> //somemachine/NFS/share/world.othermachines` > To retain version information. The server can uniquely sort this file > before running `emerge -Uf` for each line. Of course you are right here. No need to copy manually. Your other response to me had some quite good tips, especially the suggestion to have a copy of each desktop's worldfile on the server, synced, when the desktop shuts down. > > Note I have some machines running ~x86, and I do > > updates quite often (every two days average on this computers). I also > > often > > emerge packages only to have a look, how they work and if they fit my > > needs > > better than the program I actually use for this purpose. That's not my > > idea > > of comfort ;-) > > But as long as the automated sync & fetch process only takes place at > midnight, you can quite happily emerge new packages during the day, to > the same shared distfiles, without interfering with it. Well, a pure cron job would not fit my needs. There is no particular time in a day, when it could do its job safely. I'm working all times a day and at night. It depends on my wife, me, moonphase and what not. I'm currently thinking of a script, running when the desktops start up, which tells the server "here I am". When doing shutdown it will copy the worldfile to the server and "logout" from the server. When cron says "Do the emerge", it will only be started, if no desktops are online, hopeing, no desktop is started and updating, while it is still syncing and fetching ;-) > Stroller. Many thanks, did help a lot, Michael -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
On 23 Sep 2003, at 9:42 pm, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: systems - it only updates the local portage database & fetches the updates you require. It would, I would think, be quite easy to unshare the NFS export before getting the files, and reshare it afterwards, as part of the cron job. If this is done at 4am, then it is likely to cause little interruption to service in most environments. Besides I share your opinion, that shell-scripting is an adequate way of cleaning distfiles, I must admit, that a cron-job, which calls emerge sync && emerge -fud world only makes sense on a shared .../distfiles, if and only if all machines sharing this, have the same packages installed. Given I have a server w/o X and such and some desktop machines naturally with this things. The share resides on the server, because this is the only machine 24/7 up. How could an update of X, KDE etc happen and use already downloaded files? When the desktops call emerge -ud world parallel, wouldn't that cause problems? Am I missing something? I'd love to do it this way, but I found no workaround for this problem yet. I think, this would work, but that's not what I really want to do: editing world files, copying them here over and there over, everytime I update a desktop and/or the server. Well, of course you don't need to copy the files manually everytime. There are lots of ways to do this: at 4:30pm every machine runs something like: `cat /var/cache/edb/world >> //somemachine/NFS/share/world.othermachines` Or: `qpkg -I -v >> //somemachine/NFS/share/world.othermachines` To retain version information. The server can uniquely sort this file before running `emerge -Uf` for each line. Note I have some machines running ~x86, and I do updates quite often (every two days average on this computers). I also often emerge packages only to have a look, how they work and if they fit my needs better than the program I actually use for this purpose. That's not my idea of comfort ;-) But as long as the automated sync & fetch process only takes place at midnight, you can quite happily emerge new packages during the day, to the same shared distfiles, without interfering with it. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Mittwoch, den 24. September 2003 02:16 schrieb Collins Richey: > > What I really like to see is a possibility to remove the distfiles that > > are not connected to an ebuild anymore (outdated packages). These files > > would probably never be downloaded again, and this method would save some > > disk space. > > Check the archives for a script. Thanks for the info, I think I will be soon finding my "favourite" :-) - -- Christian Banik ICQ #12712782 -- UMS: +49 (0) 721 - 15 14 22 42 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/cVK7Vsozj6PI2MMRAoBaAJ91VoDlj4JjkR48dT/7DrwlAczC7ACfUyqk UeGtkxpW8tYw25uk6TQT35s= =vTuV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:17:35 +0200 Christian Banik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Am Dienstag, den 23. September 2003 13:52 schrieb > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Is there really no option or flag or feature or something to set in > > /etc/make.conf so that emerge will remove the /usr/portage/distfiles/* that > > were downloaded for the installation? > > What I really like to see is a possibility to remove the distfiles that are > not connected to an ebuild anymore (outdated packages). These files would > probably never be downloaded again, and this method would save some disk > space. > Check the archives for a script. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
On 23 Sep 2003, at 7:18 pm, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: The `emerge --update` is done separately - no-one sensible would advise system updates without manual intervention. However if all the files are stored on one machine & exported over NFS, then it is expedient to have that machine do the fetching of all files. A cron job to `emerge sync && emerge -fud world` does NO installation or upgrading of any systems - it only updates the local portage database & fetches the updates you require. It would, I would think, be quite easy to unshare the NFS export before getting the files, and reshare it afterwards, as part of the cron job. If this is done at 4am, then it is likely to cause little interruption to service in most environments. Besides I share your opinion, that shell-scripting is an adequate way of cleaning distfiles, I must admit, that a cron-job, which calls emerge sync && emerge -fud world only makes sense on a shared .../distfiles, if and only if all machines sharing this, have the same packages installed. Given I have a server w/o X and such and some desktop machines naturally with this things. The share resides on the server, because this is the only machine 24/7 up. How could an update of X, KDE etc happen and use already downloaded files? When the desktops call emerge -ud world parallel, wouldn't that cause problems? Am I missing something? I'd love to do it this way, but I found no workaround for this problem yet. You are right - in this scenario, if 2 desktops `emerge -u world` simultaneously to the shared directory then they will collide on fetches of new files not in the world file of the server. So in this instance something more sophisticated is required. My personal approach would be, then, to hold copies of the "world" file for each desktop machine on the master server machine - something like /var/cache/edb/world then /var/cache/edb/world.machine2 /var/cache/edb/world.machine3 & so on. A cron job (on each desktop) backs these up at a suitable time each day before the desktop users leave for the evening & switch their machines down (you could even add it to the shutdown sequence, I guess). Now, I'm no Bash guru, so I have to recommend the Advanced Bash Scripting Guide, which is a free download from the LDP; chapter 10 covers lists, and examples 10-3 & 10-4 suggest that one could then proceed something like: #!/bin/bash /usr/bin/emerge sync ; for application in `cat /var/cache/edb/world*` do /usr/bin/emerge -uf $application done I guess there might be a bug in the way this script handles `quotes` and substitution of * on the 2nd line, but I'm sure one could fix this - hopefully you get the point. One could also concatenate all the files into a pipe before uniquely `sort`ing them, so that `emerge -f` isn't called repeatedly for files which have already been downloaded. But these are details. I think this would, loosely speaking, work in such a way that the master server downloads all the files that will be later be emerged on the desktops. Hope this makes sense, Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
> Have I missed something again? > > Is there really no option or flag or feature or something to set in > /etc/make.conf so that emerge will remove the /usr/portage/distfiles/* that > were downloaded for the installation? Yes. You've missed http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/46323/match=distfiles http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=3011&highlight=distfiles+clean http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=70275&highlight=distfiles+clean http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=69654&highlight=distfiles+clean http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=67849 Honestly, people... -Heschi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Dienstag, den 23. September 2003 13:52 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Is there really no option or flag or feature or something to set in > /etc/make.conf so that emerge will remove the /usr/portage/distfiles/* that > were downloaded for the installation? What I really like to see is a possibility to remove the distfiles that are not connected to an ebuild anymore (outdated packages). These files would probably never be downloaded again, and this method would save some disk space. Christian - -- Christian Banik ICQ #12712782 -- UMS: +49 (0) 721 - 15 14 22 42 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/cMaGVsozj6PI2MMRAva0AJ9KlpVSApS0ZoHLbWKnAizopecGEACcCTS4 raJx7SPrHJjd+rEMCSLadPc= =s7dB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
Hi, Am Dienstag, 23. September 2003 22:07 schrieb Paul Hannah: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I have never tried something similar to this, but if you added any packages > installed on the clients manually (or through some automated script) to the > world file, after backing up the original and remembering to replace it > when you want to do an update to the server. Then the 'emerge sync && > emerge - -fud' should retreive all the files needed by all clients, no? > > Paul. > > On Tuesday 23 Sep 2003 7:18 pm, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 23. September 2003 18:46 schrieb Stroller: > > > > I feel unhappy with automatic system updates. Should etc-update be > > ... > > > > systems - it only updates the local portage database & fetches the > > > updates you require. It would, I would think, be quite easy to unshare > > > the NFS export before getting the files, and reshare it afterwards, as > > > part of the cron job. If this is done at 4am, then it is likely to > > > cause little interruption to service in most environments. > > > > Besides I share your opinion, that shell-scripting is an adequate way of > > cleaning distfiles, I must admit, that a cron-job, which calls emerge > > sync && emerge -fud world only makes sense on a shared .../distfiles, if > > and only if all machines sharing this, have the same packages installed. > > Given I have a server w/o X and such and some desktop machines naturally > > with this things. The share resides on the server, because this is the > > only machine 24/7 up. How could an update of X, KDE etc happen and use > > already downloaded files? When the desktops call emerge -ud world > > parallel, wouldn't that cause problems? Am I missing something? I'd love > > to do it this way, but I found no workaround for this problem yet. > > > > > Stroller. > > > -- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > Michael I think, this would work, but that's not what I really want to do: editing world files, copying them here over and there over, everytime I update a desktop and/or the server. Note I have some machines running ~x86, and I do updates quite often (every two days average on this computers). I also often emerge packages only to have a look, how they work and if they fit my needs better than the program I actually use for this purpose. That's not my idea of comfort ;-) Thanks anyway for your suggestion, Michael -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have never tried something similar to this, but if you added any packages installed on the clients manually (or through some automated script) to the world file, after backing up the original and remembering to replace it when you want to do an update to the server. Then the 'emerge sync && emerge - -fud' should retreive all the files needed by all clients, no? Paul. On Tuesday 23 Sep 2003 7:18 pm, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: > Am Dienstag, 23. September 2003 18:46 schrieb Stroller: > > > I feel unhappy with automatic system updates. Should etc-update be ... > > systems - it only updates the local portage database & fetches the > > updates you require. It would, I would think, be quite easy to unshare > > the NFS export before getting the files, and reshare it afterwards, as > > part of the cron job. If this is done at 4am, then it is likely to > > cause little interruption to service in most environments. > > Besides I share your opinion, that shell-scripting is an adequate way of > cleaning distfiles, I must admit, that a cron-job, which calls emerge sync > && emerge -fud world only makes sense on a shared .../distfiles, if and > only if all machines sharing this, have the same packages installed. Given > I have a server w/o X and such and some desktop machines naturally with > this things. The share resides on the server, because this is the only > machine 24/7 up. How could an update of X, KDE etc happen and use already > downloaded files? When the desktops call emerge -ud world parallel, > wouldn't that cause problems? Am I missing something? I'd love to do it > this way, but I found no workaround for this problem yet. > > > Stroller. > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > Michael > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/cKfnB7nyD0FFN/MRArPdAJ9w28fy0x/L6aon6zrCgpWD9lGOJQCg3tz2 ZD5+1HlWuXO7nRuooUZANu8= =C1wo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
Am Dienstag, 23. September 2003 18:46 schrieb Stroller: > > I feel unhappy with automatic system updates. Should etc-update be > > executed > > automatically after the emerge or not? Should every operator check > > his/her > > computer every morning to see if en etc-update gives something to do? > > The `emerge --update` is done separately - no-one sensible would advise > system updates without manual intervention. However if all the files > are stored on one machine & exported over NFS, then it is expedient to > have that machine do the fetching of all files. A cron job to `emerge > sync && emerge -fud world` does NO installation or upgrading of any > systems - it only updates the local portage database & fetches the > updates you require. It would, I would think, be quite easy to unshare > the NFS export before getting the files, and reshare it afterwards, as > part of the cron job. If this is done at 4am, then it is likely to > cause little interruption to service in most environments. Besides I share your opinion, that shell-scripting is an adequate way of cleaning distfiles, I must admit, that a cron-job, which calls emerge sync && emerge -fud world only makes sense on a shared .../distfiles, if and only if all machines sharing this, have the same packages installed. Given I have a server w/o X and such and some desktop machines naturally with this things. The share resides on the server, because this is the only machine 24/7 up. How could an update of X, KDE etc happen and use already downloaded files? When the desktops call emerge -ud world parallel, wouldn't that cause problems? Am I missing something? I'd love to do it this way, but I found no workaround for this problem yet. > Stroller. > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list Michael -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
On 23 Sep 2003, at 4:03 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you explain what concurrency issues you anticipate, please..? Simply that two (or more) clients would try to download and _store_ the same file at the same time... could also be that one or more client believes it is already downloaded because the first bytes were just downloaded by another client. The clients will not download a file if only part exists - the md5sum of the downloaded file will not be valid & the emerge will fail. Both could be managed by a midnight cron job, for instance. Let me clarify that: I think that in this situation it's advisable to ensure that no two machines `emerge sync` at the same time... also need to `emerge -fu world` ...however this... could be managed by a midnight cron job, for instance. I feel unhappy with automatic system updates. Should etc-update be executed automatically after the emerge or not? Should every operator check his/her computer every morning to see if en etc-update gives something to do? The `emerge --update` is done separately - no-one sensible would advise system updates without manual intervention. However if all the files are stored on one machine & exported over NFS, then it is expedient to have that machine do the fetching of all files. A cron job to `emerge sync && emerge -fud world` does NO installation or upgrading of any systems - it only updates the local portage database & fetches the updates you require. It would, I would think, be quite easy to unshare the NFS export before getting the files, and reshare it afterwards, as part of the cron job. If this is done at 4am, then it is likely to cause little interruption to service in most environments. A script is, however, given that (with some discretion, I think) deletes files in this directory as you require; this script could of course also be cron'd. That's great, except that it has to be _procedurally_ syncronized again. We wouldn't want to run this script before the emerge had finished, would we? I don't think this should be a problem if it only deletes distfiles which are over (say) a month old. But I haven't examined that script; I think it would also be possible to go something involving `qpkg -I -v` and a less-than statement. I don't quite see what your problem is with a 'procedural" solution: you can use cron to only get files on odd days of the month, and only delete old ones (I think) on even days. The only intervention necessary is to install them, which is as it should be. IMHO, any deletion of ../distfiles/* should happen in the end of an emerge sequence. But again, that's just an opinion. Well, I think you should be able to write a wrapper script called `myemerge` which simply calls emerge with the same parameters as those with which it was itself invoked, then empties distfiles for you. I hope you forgive me expressing my opinion - I think you're making a problem out of nothing with this. I see quite simple solutions using bash scripting which will get you what you want. Whilst it might seem a little kludgy to have to do things yourself, and that it might be nice to have the facilities you describe built into Portage when it eventually gets completely rewritten, I think that scripting solutions are quite adequate in the circumstances. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
> Could you explain what concurrency issues you anticipate, please..? Simply that two (or more) clients would try to download and _store_ the same file at the same time, a distfile that did not exist on the local server, but the clients happen to request at more or less the same time, realizing that the file is not there and start a download each. Could also be that one or more client believes it is already downloaded because the first bytes were just downloaded by another client. > One might also need to `emerge -fu world` on one machine before > actually `emerge -u`ing all other machines, however this is again > fairly trivial. This would require a _procedural_ syncronization that I'd like to minimize as much as possible. > Both could be managed by a midnight cron job, for >instance. I feel unhappy with automatic system updates. Should etc-update be executed automatically after the emerge or not? Should every operator check his/her computer every morning to see if en etc-update gives something to do? I try as much as possible to _shorten_ the window between and emerge and an etc-update. Personally, I prefer to do system updates sitting in front of the terminal, but that may be a matter of preference. And I do respect any opinion, even though I may not necessarily share it. ;-) > A script is, however, given that (with some discretion, I think) > deletes files in this directory as you require; this script could of > course also be cron'd. That's great, except that it has to be _procedurally_ syncronized again. We wouldn't want to run this script before the emerge had finished, would we? IMHO, any deletion of ../distfiles/* should happen in the end of an emerge sequence. But again, that's just an opinion. > Clearly the important factor is that a script > which removes files from .../distfiles/ should not facilitate a user > placing anything more than insignificant additional load on the > volunteer mirrors & file-servers who give their bandwidth to Gentoo & > the OSS community. Absolutely. Which is why I'm looking at different approaches in maintaining a local Gentoo mirror server in my LAN. > Feel free to supply a patch. I'd love to. I just don't feel competent enough. At least not just yet. ;-) Biker -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
On 23 Sep 2003, at 2:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Either I have to have a "per client" ../distfiles directory on the nfs server wich creates an enormous redundancy... Or, I share the single ../distfiles directory between all 13 computers, with all potential concurrency problems that would bring in to the soup. Could you explain what concurrency issues you anticipate, please..? I think that in this situation it's advisable to ensure that no two machines `emerge sync` at the same time, but that is easily controlled. One might also need to `emerge -fu world` on one machine before actually `emerge -u`ing all other machines, however this is again fairly trivial. Both could be managed by a midnight cron job, for instance. Marius's emerge wrapper is constructive. I just can't understand why it would be so difficult to create a flag for this in make.conf. The default value would typically be to keep the distfiles. This was discussed on -dev last month, without a massive consensus. http://tinyurl.com/octt A script is, however, given that (with some discretion, I think) deletes files in this directory as you require; this script could of course also be cron'd. Clearly the important factor is that a script which removes files from .../distfiles/ should not facilitate a user placing anything more than insignificant additional load on the volunteer mirrors & file-servers who give their bandwidth to Gentoo & the OSS community. I think that the reason no huge consensus was reached regarding this on -dev when it was last discussed is that it's not sufficiently interesting or useful enough to anyone involved that they might wish to incorporate it into Portage (which is, by all accounts, a large & complicated piece of code as it is). Feel free to supply a patch. As Daniel recently said at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/12236/ , "The goal of Gentoo is to design tools and systems that allow a user to do their work pleasantly and efficiently as possible, as *they* see fit." And also "If the tool forces the user to do things a particular way, then the tool is working against, rather than for, the user." Please excuse my skepticism: I do not wish to critisise our beloved leader, however this statement rang out of true for me when he originally posted it. Surely the goal of ANY distro or operating system is "to design tools and systems that allow a user to do their work pleasantly and efficiently as possible, as they see fit"..? Surely ANY o/s or distro should aspire to such perfection in all matters..? However this world is one of compromises, and it is difficult enough to describe eloquently enough one's idea of "pleasant and efficient" in English, let alone in code. Now implement your code such that it is powerful & flexible enough to do things ANY way that ANY user requires, and I think you will be coding until Judgment Day. I think that the consequence of each & every distro aspiring to such perfection is that each takes different approaches & hence different compromises, suitable for different types of user. Gentoo never forces you to do anything a particular way, because you have access to the source-code, and you can change that. By default, I think, Gentoo is most suitable for users who have a particular design & engineering 'philosophy'; it provides "tools and systems that allow" such a user "to do their work pleasantly and efficiently as possible, as *they* see fit." I think that such a user would decide that it is easy enough to implement what you require with the tools resources you have been advised of in this thread, rather than trying to reimplement it themselves in any other way Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
> > So, you've got too much harddisk space, do you? > > Kindly, send your excess harddisk space to me by e-mail, preferrably > gzipped. :-) > > > On one of my PCs, I run Gentoo out of a 1.2 GB hd. OK, I admit to not > having installed X. ;-) > > Biker I know this depends a lot on where you are in the world, but here in Silicon Valley I can usually pick up an 80GB drive for about $80 these days, so I plead guilty to being able to waste disk space. That said, I understand where you're coming from. I'm not sure that 1.5GB of portage data will ever be used. It just hasn't been worth my time yet to clean it up. BTW - I can use up about 200MB/minute when I do my audio recording. (24 tracks at 24-bit/44.1KHz) so my other Firewire drives actually have lots of data and I really can never have too much disk space. - Mark -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
Coz if its a normal nfs share, two computers may decide to download the file at the same time. There was talk about how to handle this in the past. Personally, I would still do it as it would be: 1. would be an occaisional occurrence only 2. the machines would error off if the file corrupts 3. only a few seconds by the admin and its fixed. Large scale installations (many PC's) would need some type of 404 handler: file not in cache, let the server go get it! BillK On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 21:19, Terry Churchill wrote: > My pet monkey insists that on Sep 23 2003 at 02:06PM > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> warbled: > > > Or, I share the single ../distfiles directory between all 13 computers, > > with all potential concurrency problems that would bring in to the soup. > > (Oh, what a nightmare that may become. ;-) > > How would this be a nightmare? It's exactly what I do here. You are only > sharing distfiles, not build locations or anything where having more than one > machine accessing it at a time would cause a problem. -- William Kenworthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:52:00 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Have I missed something again? > > Is there really no option or flag or feature or something to set in > /etc/make.conf so that emerge will remove the /usr/portage/distfiles/* that > were downloaded for the installation? > > In my situation I don't see why I would ever re-install something already > installed. > > I can see the advantage for developers installing the same packages several > times. > I can also see the potential interest for someone being on a slow line with > mucho harddisk. > > > But for many ordinary users (like myself) it just doesn't make sense to > save the distfile once installed just in case I might once want to > re-install it. (It will anyway be outdated by then.) > > I'd like to set some flag or somesuch so that emerge does this cleanup > after itself and from what I read in the forums and on this mailing list, I > believe it's a quite common feeling. > > > > So my questions are: What FM did I miss? How is this done? Can it be done? > > Please see the archives. This discussion has consumed ample bandwidth. There is no standard way to keep distfiles clean, but there are several procedures (scripts) for doing this. It all boils down to this: 1) If you have plenty of disk space or a very slow internet connection, just ignore the size of/usr/portage/distfiles and /var/tmp/portage. 2) If, like me, you are on high speed internet and don't want the exra space, you can blow away (when emerge is not running of course) the files in these two directories. Anything that is needed again will be downloaded when and if it is needed. Most of the packages will never be needed again, but some of them are updated via patch, so they must be downloaded again if not present. YMMV. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
My pet monkey insists that on Sep 23 2003 at 02:06PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> warbled: > Or, I share the single ../distfiles directory between all 13 computers, > with all potential concurrency problems that would bring in to the soup. > (Oh, what a nightmare that may become. ;-) How would this be a nightmare? It's exactly what I do here. You are only sharing distfiles, not build locations or anything where having more than one machine accessing it at a time would cause a problem. -- .~. Terry Churchill : [EMAIL PROTECTED] .''`. /V\ ICQ : 256731870 : :' : /(_)\ http://www.doc-linux.co.uk/`. `'` ^ ^ `- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
Not convinced.
Either I have to have a "per client" ../distfiles directory on the nfs
server wich creates an enormous redundancy on that large harddisk. (Keeping
13 ../distfiles directories. 12 clients and the local one for the nfs
server.)
Or, I share the single ../distfiles directory between all 13 computers,
with all potential concurrency problems that would bring in to the soup.
(Oh, what a nightmare that may become. ;-)
Marius's emerge wrapper is constructive. I just can't understand why it
would be so difficult to create a flag for this in make.conf. The default
value would typically be to keep the distfiles.
As Daniel recently said at
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/12236/ , "The goal of
Gentoo is to design tools and systems that allow a user to do their work
pleasantly and efficiently as possible, as *they* see fit."
And also "If the tool forces the user to do things a particular way, then
the tool is working against, rather than for, the user."
Biker
Terry Churchill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
inux.co.uk> cc: (bcc: Gustav
Schaffter/CDS/CG/CAPITAL)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user]
Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
23-09-2003 14:43
Please respond to
gentoo-user
My pet monkey insists that on Sep 23 2003 at 01:36PM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> warbled:
> But if I intend to keep a local Gentoo mirror in my little network? (I
*do*
> have a PC with a large harddisk. Well, even two, actually. ;-)
>
> Then I may need to keep the distfiles on my Gentoo Gateway server, but I
> could use and throw away the distfiles on my 'Client' PCs. (*If* the
client
> PCs could be told to throw them away, that is.)
Simply mount /var/portage/distfiles/ via nfs on the clients. There's no
need
to throw any distfiles away then.
HTH
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
My pet monkey insists that on Sep 23 2003 at 01:36PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> warbled: > But if I intend to keep a local Gentoo mirror in my little network? (I *do* > have a PC with a large harddisk. Well, even two, actually. ;-) > > Then I may need to keep the distfiles on my Gentoo Gateway server, but I > could use and throw away the distfiles on my 'Client' PCs. (*If* the client > PCs could be told to throw them away, that is.) Simply mount /var/portage/distfiles/ via nfs on the clients. There's no need to throw any distfiles away then. HTH -- .~. Terry Churchill : [EMAIL PROTECTED] .''`. /V\ ICQ : 256731870 : :' : /(_)\ http://www.doc-linux.co.uk/`. `'` ^ ^ `- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 23 September 2003 13:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But if I intend to keep a local Gentoo mirror in my little network? (I *do* > have a PC with a large harddisk. Well, even two, actually. ;-) > > Then I may need to keep the distfiles on my Gentoo Gateway server, but I > could use and throw away the distfiles on my 'Client' PCs. (*If* the client > PCs could be told to throw them away, that is.) Mount distfiles via NFS/Samba. I think my fileserver has something like 8-9gigs of distfiles, and all the other boxes have non at all. Well, apart from this laptop, but I'm at work, and it only has what I've installed/upgraded today. - -- Mike Williams -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/cD+kInuLMrk7bIwRAiwXAJsGAtW23jMUF13qI6JlMe59m8ybaQCghcgd 4xbkRHRSj6RQeWa7+Ty7UpE= =cos6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
But if I intend to keep a local Gentoo mirror in my little network? (I *do* have a PC with a large harddisk. Well, even two, actually. ;-) Then I may need to keep the distfiles on my Gentoo Gateway server, but I could use and throw away the distfiles on my 'Client' PCs. (*If* the client PCs could be told to throw them away, that is.) Biker William Kenworthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: gentoo-user List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> au> cc: (bcc: Gustav Schaffter/CDS/CG/CAPITAL) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf 23-09-2003 14:20 Please respond to gentoo-user Adding to your list of reasons are: gcc/glibc upgrades have in the past required a full system recompile from scratch: this happened for gcc 2.95 to 3.0, 3.1 (and 3.2?) and looks like it will soon be neccessary with 3.3 if you want to get the advertised gains. change of opt flags in make.conf and you then need to recompile the system to enable them in each lib/binary a -rn version upgrade by portage usually just patches, or changes the configuration in the ebuild so the downloaded tarball is reused (e.g., setting permissions on some file that escaped the first iteration) - happens often! That being said, it would be nice if the glag was 0,1,3,... so you could keep 0 versions (need space), 1 version (whats installed), 2 (whats installed, and prev in case you need to roll back). You could then use 0 for a laptop, and 2 for a server etc. BillK On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 19:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Have I missed something again? > > Is there really no option or flag or feature or something to set in > /etc/make.conf so that emerge will remove the /usr/portage/distfiles/* that > were downloaded for the installation? > > In my situation I don't see why I would ever re-install something already > installed. > > I can see the advantage for developers installing the same packages several > times. > I can also see the potential interest for someone being on a slow line with > mucho harddisk. > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
On 09/23/03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But for many ordinary users (like myself) it just doesn't make sense
> to save the distfile once installed just in case I might once want to
> re-install it. (It will anyway be outdated by then.)
>
> I'd like to set some flag or somesuch so that emerge does this cleanup
> after itself and from what I read in the forums and on this mailing
> list, I believe it's a quite common feeling.
put this in your .bashrc:
delmerge () {
emerge "$@" && rm /usr/portage/distfiles/*
}
and then use delmerge instead of emerge.
Marius
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
Oh, missed another reason. Everytime I install a system, I just copy over the distfiles and go from there: this batch started with gentoo 1.0, prob not many of the originals left, but its certainly saved a heap in download costs. BillK On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 19:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Have I missed something again? > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
> On the other hand, disk drives are large. I have 80GB - most of it > unpartitioned at this time. I'll add more space later if I need it I > suppose. > - Mark So, you've got too much harddisk space, do you? Kindly, send your excess harddisk space to me by e-mail, preferrably gzipped. :-) On one of my PCs, I run Gentoo out of a 1.2 GB hd. OK, I admit to not having installed X. ;-) Biker -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
Adding to your list of reasons are: gcc/glibc upgrades have in the past required a full system recompile from scratch: this happened for gcc 2.95 to 3.0, 3.1 (and 3.2?) and looks like it will soon be neccessary with 3.3 if you want to get the advertised gains. change of opt flags in make.conf and you then need to recompile the system to enable them in each lib/binary a -rn version upgrade by portage usually just patches, or changes the configuration in the ebuild so the downloaded tarball is reused (e.g., setting permissions on some file that escaped the first iteration) - happens often! That being said, it would be nice if the glag was 0,1,3,... so you could keep 0 versions (need space), 1 version (whats installed), 2 (whats installed, and prev in case you need to roll back). You could then use 0 for a laptop, and 2 for a server etc. BillK On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 19:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Have I missed something again? > > Is there really no option or flag or feature or something to set in > /etc/make.conf so that emerge will remove the /usr/portage/distfiles/* that > were downloaded for the installation? > > In my situation I don't see why I would ever re-install something already > installed. > > I can see the advantage for developers installing the same packages several > times. > I can also see the potential interest for someone being on a slow line with > mucho harddisk. > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 04:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So my questions are: What FM did I miss? How is this done? Can it be done? > > > Biker > :-) About 40% of all the disk usage on my Gentoo machine is in /usr/portage! (1.5GB) On the other hand, disk drives are large. I have 80GB - most of it unpartitioned at this time. I'll add more space later if I need it I suppose. - Mark -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] Cleaning up ../distfiles from make.conf
Have I missed something again? Is there really no option or flag or feature or something to set in /etc/make.conf so that emerge will remove the /usr/portage/distfiles/* that were downloaded for the installation? In my situation I don't see why I would ever re-install something already installed. I can see the advantage for developers installing the same packages several times. I can also see the potential interest for someone being on a slow line with mucho harddisk. But for many ordinary users (like myself) it just doesn't make sense to save the distfile once installed just in case I might once want to re-install it. (It will anyway be outdated by then.) I'd like to set some flag or somesuch so that emerge does this cleanup after itself and from what I read in the forums and on this mailing list, I believe it's a quite common feeling. So my questions are: What FM did I miss? How is this done? Can it be done? Biker -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
