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] |