Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving our/portage stuff to var

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:19:52 -0800
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:

> On 12/19/2012 02:01 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:56:44 +0100
> > Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> Just mv /usr/portage /var/portage ? FFS no. Among other things, as
> >> many said before, we should really take distfiles out of the tree
> >> itself, and packages the same. And I don't want /var/packages
> >> or /var/distfiles at all.
> >
> > If we are going to move distfiles out of the tree into, what are the
> > odds of getting /some/path/portage/local to move somewhere else too?
>
> What program uses this "local" directory? It's not used directly by
> portage itself, though portage has an exclude for it in the default
> PORTAGE_RSYNC_OPTS setting
> (in /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals).

It goes back a long time, and is basically a poor man's local overlay
without having to use layman. As I understand it, portage will treat
the directory like any other when looking for ebuilds and resolving
deps, but exclude it from a sync.

>
> > That one has irked me for ages, its the one thing left on my systems
> > that stops the local tree dir being an exact replica of the upstream
> > master.
>
> For portage's defaults, I won't settle for anything less than having
> them all refer to separate directories which are *not* nested within
> one other. These are the current default settings which violate my
> requirements:
>
> 	PORTDIR=/usr/portage
> 	DISTDIR=${PORTDIR}/distfiles
> 	PKGDIR=${PORTDIR}/packages
> 	RPMDIR=${PORTDIR}/rpm

/usr/portage/local has the taste feel and smell of a hacky workaround:
shove a directory in the tree and exclude it from sync.

I suspect the best solution all round is to move all support for local
overlays into layman. I'd be happy with that. Probably make the portage
code cleaner too.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com