| 1 |
Alex Alexander dixit (2010-01-18, 11:07): |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:05:58AM +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I sometimes think the main problem is the tree itself. Portage really |
| 5 |
> > should had a directory of its own, but maybe with anoher structure, |
| 6 |
> > like /var/portage, /var/portage/tree (the current |
| 7 |
> > PORTDIR), /var/portage/distfiles (i.e. split out distfiles from the tree |
| 8 |
> > itself), /var/portage/overlays/layman or /var/portage/layman. |
| 9 |
> > I of course realize that change the structure of the whole portdir would |
| 10 |
> > had inresting complications, so take this comment just as serious as you |
| 11 |
> > like. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > But overlays really was an afterthought? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I like this suggestion, it certainly makes the whole folder structure |
| 16 |
> cleaner. If we're going to fix stuff, lets do it properly once and for |
| 17 |
> all. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Some compatibility code that checks and uses the old default locations |
| 20 |
> while printing out warnings would help existing users with the |
| 21 |
> transition without breaking current systems. Users with custom PORTDIR |
| 22 |
> and friends could be notified through a news item. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> /var/portage/ |
| 25 |
> /var/portage/tree |
| 26 |
> /var/portage/layman |
| 27 |
> /var/portage/overlays (non-layman managed, layman could also be in here) |
| 28 |
> /var/portage/distfiles |
| 29 |
> /var/portage/packages |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> or %s/var/usr/ |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Very much +1. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
[a] |
Archives