1 |
On 20 December 2012 17:44, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Michael Mol wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>>>> /var/cache/portage/distfiles |
5 |
>>>>> /var/cache/portage/repositories/gentoo |
6 |
>>>>> /var/cache/portage/repositories/{sunrise,kde,gnome,whatever,layman,grabs} |
7 |
>>>>> /var/db/portage/repositories/{non-cache,repo,names,go,here} |
8 |
> |
9 |
>>> -1 |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> The subdirs are too deeply nested. (Ebuilds would be at the eighth |
12 |
>>> level then...) |
13 |
> |
14 |
>> Maybe I missed something...but what's wrong with that? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> There's no good reason for nesting it so deeply. As it is proposed |
17 |
> above, /var/cache/portage would contain only two subdirectories, and |
18 |
> /var/cache/portage/repositories only a single "gentoo" on a stable |
19 |
> system. Also /var/cache itself isn't overpopulated; I count about ten |
20 |
> entries on my systems. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> We should go with a shorter (easier to remember, easier to type) path |
23 |
> and move things at least one level up. Two would be even better. |
24 |
> |
25 |
>>> Let's put the tree in /var/cache/portage please, and distfiles in |
26 |
>>> /var/cache/distfiles. Layman overlays can stay where they are, or |
27 |
>>> move to /var/cache/layman. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Ulrich |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
Yeah +1 to that. Makes more sense to me |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Regards, |
36 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |