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