Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 25651 - Portage supporting multiple clients at once
Summary: Portage supporting multiple clients at once
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 10149
Alias: None
Product: Portage Development
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Enhancement/Feature Requests (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Portage team
URL: http://www.subverted.net/wakka/wakka....
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-07-31 10:58 UTC by Frido Ferdinand
Modified: 2005-07-17 13:06 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Frido Ferdinand 2003-07-31 10:58:29 UTC
It would be great if portage could track dependencies on multiple systems. This
way things like: emerge --client="host.domain.tld" could become possible which
is very welcome when administrating multiple clients. The 'pushing/pulling' of
updates should be modular (rsync/nfs come to mind)

See some details on the URL above (Gentoo Server Implementation).

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.




This is just brainstorming, I would like to know how feasible this is in portage.
Comment 1 Nicholas Jones (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2004-04-12 16:10:04 UTC
I have this on my list of things to eventually get done for
Enterprise-level support... Using CORBA/bonobo, most likely.

It's a ways off though. Maybe very late 2004 or 2005.
Comment 2 Eric Brown 2004-07-26 19:10:06 UTC
what if you just had the clients poll the server, and if the server was told to provide updates for that host/package, it would.  this way you don't hafta run any daemons on the clients.
Comment 3 Brian Harring (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2005-02-27 23:10:12 UTC
Slapping this as a dupe of the enterprise portage bug (this is a bug specific to modifying the emerge tool to control remote clients, see bug 10149 for the preferred approach).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10149 ***