| 1 |
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:50:00 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > I would like the council to put an end to the current "moving |
| 7 |
> > default location of portage tree" bikeshed thread by making the |
| 8 |
> > decision of our new defaults. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I think we should have proposal ready for vote at the council meeting, |
| 11 |
> because I don't expect that discussion of individual paths during the |
| 12 |
> meeting would lead to anything. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > This includes: |
| 15 |
> > - main "gentoo" ebuild tree |
| 16 |
> > - distfiles |
| 17 |
> > - packages |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Trying to summarise the discussion in -dev, and in #-portage: Everyone |
| 20 |
> seems to agree that all of these should be somewhere under /var, and |
| 21 |
> possible candidates are /var/lib, /var/cache, and /var/db. Note that |
| 22 |
> /var/db is not specified by the FHS, but it exists in all the BSDs. |
| 23 |
> Also, I am disregarding suggestions like /var/gentoo or /var/portage |
| 24 |
> for now. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> For both /var/lib and /var/cache the FHS requires a <package> |
| 27 |
> subdirectory. Unless we want this to be "portage", we could use |
| 28 |
> "package-manager" (since virtual/package-manager is a package), |
| 29 |
> or pretend that "pm" is an alias for it. This would lead us to the |
| 30 |
> following paths, respectively: |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> /var/lib/{package-manager,pm}/gentoo |
| 33 |
> /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/distfiles |
| 34 |
> /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/packages |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I think it is a mistake to group distfiles and packages directly |
| 38 |
beside the repositories. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
One of the big reasons I feel this way, is so that configuration can be |
| 41 |
made more plugin friendly. With all repositories under one subdir. It |
| 42 |
could be possible for a package manager to scan the subdir for |
| 43 |
repositories. Details of repo configuration data may be included in the |
| 44 |
repository. This could eliminate the need for a |
| 45 |
/etc/portage/repos.conf. Or at the very least, eliminate the need to |
| 46 |
specify location if it is in the default base path. (just food for |
| 47 |
thought) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
If under the same /var/lib/pm, then the |
| 50 |
repositories should be in it's own "repos" subdir still for the above |
| 51 |
mentioned reasons, just like the example below for /var/db/. If that |
| 52 |
puts more weight on the /var/db prefix due to FHS..., then that is |
| 53 |
fine, it just happens to be my configuration already ;) |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> Alternatively, we could place either the gentoo tree, or all three of |
| 57 |
> the above under /var/db (which doesn't follow the FHS, so no subdir |
| 58 |
> requirement): |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> /var/db/repos/gentoo |
| 61 |
> /var/db/distfiles |
| 62 |
> /var/db/packages |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> > - snapshot name |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> Simply gentoo-20180712.tar.xz instead of portage-20180712.tar.xz? |
| 67 |
> Or is that not specific enough? |
| 68 |
> |
| 69 |
> Ulrich |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
snapshot name is good and follows the repo naming convention. :) |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Which ever of the above locations that becomes the default, I would |
| 75 |
change layman to the new default repos location as well. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
-- |
| 79 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives