1 |
mån 2010-01-18 klockan 06:27 +0100 skrev Ulrich Mueller: |
2 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > isn't a package tree somehow having "system-wide implications"? |
5 |
> > i'm not really sure about /var/db - doesn't seem to be in FHS. |
6 |
> > is a package tree a database? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> This depends on your definition of "database". At least some parts of |
9 |
> the tree (like the files/ dirs) at not very database-like. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> > current ranking through my eyes: |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > 1) /var/layman con: adds folder to /var, maybe should not |
14 |
> > 2) /var/db/layman con: you tell me |
15 |
> > 3) /var/lib/layman con: not really /var/lib-style data |
16 |
> |
17 |
> I still think that it should be close to the portage tree, therefore |
18 |
> in /usr. But if you go for /var then take /var/layman. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Ulrich |
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
I sometimes think the main problem is the tree itself. Portage really |
25 |
should had a directory of its own, but maybe with anoher structure, |
26 |
like /var/portage, /var/portage/tree (the current |
27 |
PORTDIR), /var/portage/distfiles (i.e. split out distfiles from the tree |
28 |
itself), /var/portage/overlays/layman or /var/portage/layman. |
29 |
I of course realize that change the structure of the whole portdir would |
30 |
had inresting complications, so take this comment just as serious as you |
31 |
like. |
32 |
|
33 |
But overlays really was an afterthought? |