2008.0 -> 10.0

Re: 2008.0 -> 10.0

> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/${ARCH}/10.0

Is it 2010 already? And are we already paving the way for a Y2.1K bug? 

   M

Re: 2008.0 -> 10.0

Martin Guy wrote:
>> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/${ARCH}/10.0
>
> Is it 2010 already? And are we already paving the way for a Y2.1K bug? 

Actually, this number ought to reflect Gentoo's 10th birthday..:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_a6a1edc89202d698e0c4ebe472a9e511.xml

but currently, people discuss the naming on the gentoo-dev list...

Christian

Adding new users when using buildroot?

Hi, I am building a small buildroot using say:

ROOT=/var/embedded/builds/base1 PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT=/var/embedded/portage 
emerge -v dropbear

The end result seems to be that I get my new user added to the build 
system, but not to the ROOT= system.  I have seen a few people report 
issues when using packages, but is this just a known limitation of 
recent portage or do I need some other commandline incantations?

Obviously plenty of other ways to solve this, but curious if there is a 
solution within the portage build process?

Thanks

Ed W

Re: Adding new users when using buildroot?

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 18:18 +0100, Ed W wrote:
> Hi, I am building a small buildroot using say:
> 
> ROOT=/var/embedded/builds/base1 PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT=/var/embedded/portage 
> emerge -v dropbear
> 
> The end result seems to be that I get my new user added to the build 
> system, but not to the ROOT= system.  I have seen a few people report 
> issues when using packages, but is this just a known limitation of 
> recent portage or do I need some other commandline incantations?
> 
> Obviously plenty of other ways to solve this, but curious if there is a 
> solution within the portage build process?

buildroot is not the best term to use when refering to
portage/gentoo/embedded. It just confuses people. 
Reason being.. http://buildroot.org/

As for users not being added in $ROOT. Yes you are right and sadly this
is a known limitation of portage/pam/and friends right now.

Re: Adding new users when using buildroot?

2009/9/4 Ed W <lists@...>:
> Obviously plenty of other ways to solve this, but curious if there is a
> solution within the portage build process?

I don't know of any standard way. Portage uses 'useradd' to generate
the new user
and this command does _not_ support a ROOT. The only (non-standard) way to
add a new user is by directly writing to /etc/passwd, but I'm not sure
if this works
on all OSes supported by Gentoo.

Anyway, if you follow http://gentoo.mindzoo.de/index.cgi/wiki/Cross%20Install
you will find the command

find /var/db/pkg -name '*.ebuild' -exec grep -qF 'pkg_postinst()' {}
\; -exec ebuild {} postinst \;

which reruns all postinstall sections of your cross-compiled system on
the target
and thus also creates the users.

Have fun!

    Sven

Re: Adding new users when using buildroot?

Sven Rebhan wrote:
> Anyway, if you follow http://gentoo.mindzoo.de/index.cgi/wiki/Cross%20Install
> you will find the command
>
> find /var/db/pkg -name '*.ebuild' -exec grep -qF 'pkg_postinst()' {}
> \; -exec ebuild {} postinst \;
>
> which reruns all postinstall sections of your cross-compiled system on
> the target
> and thus also creates the users.
>   

That seems like a good idea, but I think the docs say that user creation 
should be in pkg_setup() and certainly this is the case with dropbear?  
Seems a bit dangerous to re-run pkg_setup for every package...?

I also noticed that since I have only busybox in my final build and it's 
got pretty lousy support for adduser I may need to inject directly into 
/etc/

Actually the docs here 
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/users-and-groups/index.html 
suggest that this IS supposed to work inside the sandbox and hence we 
might reasonably expect it to work with ROOT= set.  However, as Ned 
says, it seems not to work right now...

Oh well

Thanks

Ed W

Reorganization of Overlay

Hello everybody,

after a nice dicussion with viridior in #neuvoo, we came up
with the following proposal for reorganizing the current
embedded overlay at overlays.gentoo.org.
The new tree should look like this:

embedded overlay
  |
  +- cross-fixes
  |   |
  |   +- python (dev-lang/python)
  |   |
  |   +- perl (dev-lang/perl)
  |   |
  |   +- ...
  |
  |
  +- profiles
  |   |
  |   +- armv4tl (profiles/embedded/armv4tl)
  |   |  |
  |   |  +- openmoko (profiles/embedded/armv4tl/openmoko)
  |   |
  |   +- armv7a (profiles/embedded/armv4tl)
  |      |
  |      +- pandora (profiles/embedded/armv7a/pandora)
  |
  +- common
  |   |
  |   +- openmoko-sources (sys-kernel/)
  |   |
  |   +- openmoko-mplayer (media-video/)
  |   |
  |   +- pandora-sources (sys-kernel/)
  |   |
  |   +- sys-mobilephone
  |   |
  |   +- ...
  |
  +- docs
  |
  +- enlightenment (temporary until submitted to respective overlay or upstream)

Right now only, openmoko ppl contribute there, which we
would like to change. The enlightenment tree will
hopefully go into the respective overlay soon and will be
removed afterwards. The split into cross- and native trees
should ensure that experimental cross-compile fixes don't
disturb others work.

What do you guys think? If you are ok with it, I'll go
forward and restructure the tree during the next week.

Best regards and thanks to viridior for the
constructive discussion!

    Sven 'sleipnir' Rebhan

personal compile-farm ?

Hi everyone,

For a long time I've been considering various mini-itx form-factor
devices for multi-purpose use at home, as an HTPC, NAS, maybe messing
around with osx86, etc.

One particular use that I wanted to make of such a device would be to
use it as my own personal compile-farm, for various arm
cross-compilation builds, and binary packages for my laptop / netbook.

Recently, I was considering the Zotac IONITX-A. I would consider this
a fairly powerful, yet low-power device, with an Atom 330 dual-core
processor at 1.6 GHz and nVidia GPU ( Ion / 9400m ). I'm more than
certain that it would work well as an HTPC, but for a personal build
machine, I'd like to hear some feedback.

Does anyone on the list have a similar network-appliance that they use
for a personal compile-farm ? Neither of my aging x86 machines offer
any CPU features greater than sse2, and neither have multiple-cores.

For those who have a multi-core compile-farm at home, is there a
largely noticeable difference in speed?

If anyone does have a Zotac IONITX-A, how is the heat dissipation? Fan
or no fan?

Cheers,

Chris
On a slightly related note
PS: Alternatively, there has been some mention [1] of a dual-core
Ion-based device for the next AppleTV model or Mac Mini.

[1] http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-nvidia-ion,6849.html

Re: personal compile-farm ?

Christopher Friedt wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For a long time I've been considering various mini-itx form-factor
> devices for multi-purpose use at home, as an HTPC, NAS, maybe messing
> around with osx86, etc.
>
> One particular use that I wanted to make of such a device would be to
> use it as my own personal compile-farm, for various arm
> cross-compilation builds, and binary packages for my laptop / netbook.
>
> Recently, I was considering the Zotac IONITX-A. I would consider this
> a fairly powerful, yet low-power device, with an Atom 330 dual-core
> processor at 1.6 GHz and nVidia GPU ( Ion / 9400m ). I'm more than
> certain that it would work well as an HTPC, but for a personal build
> machine, I'd like to hear some feedback.
>
> Does anyone on the list have a similar network-appliance that they use
> for a personal compile-farm ? Neither of my aging x86 machines offer
> any CPU features greater than sse2, and neither have multiple-cores.
>
> For those who have a multi-core compile-farm at home, is there a
> largely noticeable difference in speed?
>
>   
I don't have an atom myself but from looking at the specs, for the same
amount of money, i'd think you'd be better of with a single machine with
lots of RAM and 4 to 8 cores with lots of cache for compiling.

Then multiple of those more powerful machines if you need.