ebuild for SETI@home 3.03 (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu) Because there are only several builds of SETI@home for different architectures, this ebuilds needs the following prerequisites before it will succeed: - pre-downloaded binary archive in /usr/portage/distfiles (can be downloaded from http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/unix.html) - the following link: ln -s <archive file> /usr/portage/distfiles/${P}.tar
Created attachment 1278 [details] ebuild for setiathome-3.03
Created attachment 1283 [details] /etc/init.d/setiathome script
Created attachment 1284 [details] /etc/conf.d/setiathome setup/config file
might i suggest you include these 2 guys w/your ebuild
in using your ebuild, i found 2 problems ... first, your error display: einfo "\tln -s <archive> /usr/portage/${A}" i believe you want it to say einfo "\tln -s <archive> /usr/portage/distfiles/${A}" also, you do a check for this link, basically: if [ ! -L ${DISTDIR}/${A} ] ; then this doesnt work out too well for people like me ... i export /usr/portage/ via samba on 1 machine, and map it for other machines on the network ... the reason is that i have a central rsync (emerge rsync once instead of multiple times), and a central deposit for distfiles (d/l it once and keep it forever on a large hd rather than d/l-ing it many times over) basically, i would suggest a -e rather than a -L
- Actually it should rather display einfo "\tln -s <archive> ${DISTDIR}/${A}" - In the configuration file, I don't think mentioning all options there is a good idea. These might change over time when new releases are installed. - Also "-nice -10" isn't really a good idea. The default should be rather "-nice 19" as mentioned on the SETI@home web site.
Also is it a good idea to run setiathome as root? I don't think it would cause any security issues, but nothing should be run as root unless *really* necessary.
the nice 10 was just a random number i picked heh ... ill change it to 19 as for the running as root, since setiathome doesnt interact with anything, its kind of hard to exploit it ... but you have a suggestion to run it as nobody ? modify the init.d file accordingly to set the permissions with a chown i guess as for the ver changing over time, 3.03 has been out for a while ... plus when we update the ebuild files we can update the conf.d and init.d files respectively.
All binary only packages should be installed into /opt and have the appropriate path added to /etc/env.d
I can't really see the point of creating a new /opt directory only to put one (or even two) binary files in there. I think we shouldn't bee _too_ religious of the /opt directive. (At least that's my point of view.)
ah, but not being religious enough is what is allowing packages into /usr/portage/ with bad naming ;) ill post a revised tar.gz with the ebuild/conf.d/init.d files shortly ... see how everyone likes em
I talked to Daniel about this issue. He likes the idea of an /opt/bin directory for a small number of executables. I'm trying to figure out a safe way to add /opt/bin to everyone's PATH... ideas?
Created attachment 1434 [details] setiathome r1 (new ebuild/conf.d/init.d files) what do you guys think of this ? (Maik, check this out and see if it works for you)
I'll open a bug report to modify baselayout to include /opt/bin by default... Once that gets committed then this ebuild can use baselayout-version as a dependency and be installed into /opt/bin, and everything should be golden.
committed to app-sci/
