| 1 |
Mike Frysinger dixit (2010-01-15, 20:45): |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Friday 15 January 2010 20:24:38 Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 01/16/10 00:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > - From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. If |
| 6 |
> > > /var/cache/layman doesn't work, what about /var/spool/layman instead? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Okay, how about |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > /var/spool/layman |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > then? Any objections? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> /var/spool/ is a terrible idea -- these are not jobs being queued waiting to |
| 15 |
> be processed by a daemon and then removed. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> if you want to keep all of layman's stuff together, then about your only |
| 18 |
> option is to create your own tree at like /var/layman/. the better idea |
| 19 |
> though would be to split your stuff along the proper lines. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> cache files = /var/cache/layman/ |
| 22 |
> config files = /etc/layman/ |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Layman-added trees are not much different altogether from the main |
| 25 |
portage tree. Putting it in a location *totally* unrelated to the main |
| 26 |
portage tree is, to put it mildly, *strange*. We still haven't heard in |
| 27 |
this thread what was wrong with the original (${PORTDIR}/local/) |
| 28 |
location. Despite all the propositions in the thread it still feels like |
| 29 |
a best place to me. I'm sure the change to /usr/local/portage has been |
| 30 |
discussed elsewhere previously, but maybe a pointer to some older |
| 31 |
discussion would be handy. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I'm all for going back to the original location (based on ${PORTDIR}). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Best, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
[a] |
Archives