Bug 335320 – [Feature request] Installation/setup script for Portage

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Portage Development

[Description yannick 2010-08-30 20:26:36 UTC]

I guess it would be quite handy to have a actively maintained setup script/Makefile (or anything similar) for Portage, in order to be able to install Portage on non-gentoo systems.
Maybe this bug entry could be used to throw around some ideas and discuss whether such a script would be useful.

On the fly I stumbled upon these two threads in the forums, maybe some of the ideas could be used.
- http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=125553
- http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=28559

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

[Comment 1 Ian Stakenvicius (RETIRED) 2010-08-30 20:33:33 UTC]

you mean the gentoo-prefix project?

[Comment 2 Michał Górny 2010-08-30 20:41:47 UTC]

Aren't stage tarballs good enough?

[Comment 3 yannick 2010-08-31 06:45:37 UTC]

I'm aware of the gentoo-prefix project and of course the stage tarballs are good enough, and there is nothing wrong about it.
I thought of an tarball of the Portage sources including a configure/setup script, which could be convenient in some situations in order to install Portage without having to use a prefix or a whole stage tarball. Basically being able to /just/ install the Portage system and later run a emerge --sync or whatever (after that some configuration was done).

[Comment 4 Michał Górny 2010-08-31 07:21:18 UTC]

Ah, and the .tbz2 packages. It should be enough to extract portage-*.tbz2 into the root to get a working Portage installation.

[Comment 5 yannick 2010-08-31 08:01:57 UTC]

Michał Górny,
Hmm this confuses me. As far as I know the Portage snapshots only contain the portage tree as in /usr/portage; or am I wrong? Did you mean a different tar package?

[Comment 6 Michał Górny 2010-08-31 15:24:27 UTC]

(In reply to comment #5)
> Hmm this confuses me. As far as I know the Portage snapshots only contain the
> portage tree as in /usr/portage; or am I wrong? Did you mean a different tar
> package?

I meant the 'binary' package [1].

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2&chap=3#doc_chap4

[Comment 7 Zac Medico 2010-08-31 16:05:02 UTC]

Here's an example tbz2 file:

http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/sys-apps/portage-2.1.8.3.tbz2

Anyway, I'm not opposed to migrating code out of the ebuild and into a Makefile or setup.py or whatnot.

[Comment 8 yannick 2010-09-02 16:42:01 UTC]

Oh I see, got it. I didn't really think about using the binary package yet, that's a good point. Maybe this procedure should be documented somewhere?

[Comment 9 Zac Medico 2011-06-08 15:02:29 UTC]

If we add portage to PyPI, then people will be able to use the pip installer to install portage on other distros.

[Comment 10 Zac Medico 2012-03-17 01:29:52 UTC]

There's a Makefile in git:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=ea755bfec221290cb1f3b09aae3a885996146458

[Comment 11 Zac Medico 2012-03-18 00:19:37 UTC]

This is in 2.2.0_alpha91, but I'll leave this bug open until it's in an unmasked release.

[Comment 12 Zac Medico 2012-03-23 00:40:56 UTC]

This is fixed in 2.1.10.50.