Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Seth Woolley <seth AT tautology.org>
  • To: Casey Harkins <charkins AT upl.cs.wisc.edu>
  • Cc: Source Mage Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>, Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal
  • Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 20:47:30 -0700 (PDT)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The tool idea seems pointless if we can do it in sorcery, and the plan I
was thinking was that it would be PREFERED (for emphasis, not
loudness) rather than binary ONLY. That way, things that don't archive,
like alsa-driver, will get compiled, but everything that you could install
from cache would be resurrected. It would just be a preference, and I
would want GCC on the machine just for this reason and in case you really
do want to recompile it. Of course, we could make the compilation tools
optionally sustained depending on the content of PREFER_BIN. PREFER_BIN
would be like "RESURRECT_PREFER" in your nomenclature.

All the packages/depends, etc, should be updated on resurrect already, and
if not, it's a bug.

Also, I like it in sorcery for reasons of orthogonality. Having a
separate tool seems kind of like a gentoo approach, doesn't it (from what
I hear)?

Also, NFS is one way, but I thought that if PREFER_BIN was enabled and
there was no local cache existing, and there was a CACHE_FALLBACK_URL
given, it could download it via http/ftp/rsync/cvs, whatever lib_url can
do... Failing a non-existent cache entry on the remote site, go ahead and
compile it locally perhaps even using distcc. But if the cache were on
NFS, this would be even better because caches could be saved back upstream
for another computer to use in the farm. We could also provide upload
extensions via liburl to cvs or http/dav or ftp and publish them back up
that way.

Are these ideas helping?

Seth

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Casey Harkins wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
> > Just modify sorcery to override the -c switch to mean "resurrect", or
> > where sorcery cast -c's spells for dependency resolution and things like
> > that; have it not use -c and pull from compile cache instead if PREFER_BIN
> > is enabled in sorcery config.
>
> I thought about something like this, but I wanted to come up with
> something without modifying sorcery. If anything at all would need to be
> done to sorcery, it would be to allow the gcc check (I think there is one)
> to be disabled so gcc wouldn't be necessary on the client machines.
>
> Now if I did go the sorcery patching route, I was thinking something like
> a RESURRECT_ONLY option that would force all casts (cast, sorcery
> system-update and triggers) to only resurrect, probably similar to what
> you're describing. However, I'm not sure (and haven't looked) at if/how
> state information is maintained when dispelling and resurrecting.
> Particularly, do the entries in /var/state/sorcery/[packages|depends] get
> removed when dispelling? Do they get added when resurrecting? If I were on
> my machine right now I'd check!
>
> > I read Casey's document, and it seemed a bit overkill if we can use NFS as
> > many of us do here for managing multiple boxes or even http to publish
> > sorcery caches. Personally, I'd rather this go into sorcery as an option
> > than to have an entire new grimoire that needs publishing and maintaining.
> > It seems it really doesn't need that much modified in sorcery to just do
> > it without a new grimoire... probably the same amount as with a whole new
> > grimoire.
>
> I wasn't proposing that we create or maintain a binary grimoire (I may
> have not made this clear enough). What I am proposing, and will hopefully
> be implementing in the next two weeks, is the "tool" to create a binary
> grimoire. It would be intended only to be used locally.
>
> The NFS/http route will not work for all of our computers, as we have some
> stand-alone machines with dial-up access only (people working from their
> homes in the middle of nowhere). I could treat these as a special case,
> but I'd prefer a solution that works the same on these remote computers as
> well as our network workstations. Our networks would still use the NFS
> approach to distribute the binary grimoire and packages.
>
> Unless someone convinces me that it'd be easy to implement a
> RESURRECT_ONLY feature in sorcery, I'll start tackling the binary grimoire
> tool Monday.
>
> A couple other questions (that I could probably answer myself if I were on
> my computer):
>
> Does BASE_URL just get prepended to the SOURCE field for spells?
> Does BASE_URL effect the url for downloading a grimoire? for sorcery?
>
>
> Thanks for everyone's advice so far, it all keeps by brain moving.
>
> -casey
>
>

- --
Seth Alan Woolley <seth at tautology.org>, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D
Full Key at seth.tautology.org and pgp.mit.edu. info: www.gnupg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/LIXb7fQ833vqzH0RAhCwAKCzprpYeVReCYEY02nvCGEPofYE0gCdE2Pk
p39DQFe2K4JIRa6sbHHHKM0=
=zgon
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page