Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:04:21
Message-Id: 201102071955.46644.michaelkintzios@gmail.com
1 On Sunday 06 February 2011 20:03:13 Cedric Sodhi wrote:
2 > On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 05:54:19PM +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote:
3 > > On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:53:20 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
4 > > > > > 1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new
5 > > > > > directory, the old tree would rot in /usr
6 > > > >
7 > > > > And people would hit problems because /var bas filled up! I'm not
8 > > > > saying the current default is right, it's not, but you are
9 > > > > over-simplifying the work involved in making a change.
10 > > >
11 > > > I disagree. You are overcomplifying it instead. The proposed patch
12 > > > would involve exactly:
13 > > >
14 > > > 1.) Change the default (the value that is used if no explicit value is
15 > > > given)
16 > > >
17 > > > 2.) etc-update make.conf to explicitly specify the old location as the
18 > > > desired value.
19 > > >
20 > > > Period.
21 > >
22 > > So now you've added another step not previously mentioned, but one that
23 > > just happens to answer the point I made? Your previous 1 statement is
24 > > now no longer true, portage would not resync to a new directory, and the
25 > > old one in /usr would continue to be used, only new installs would be
26 > > affected.
27 >
28 > Correct.
29
30 It think this proposal (to only change portage for new installs) is eminently
31 doable, with enough early e-warnings about it and changes in docs. It could
32 be introduced with a change in the make.profile and require explicit user
33 intervention. I'd vote for it - if anyone is counting.
34
35
36 > > > Your attempts to argue that patching portage with that simple change
37 > > > would introduce problems of unpreceeded magnitude are pharisaic. It's
38 > > > the same though significantly simpler as other updates to whatever
39 > > > package you like.
40
41 I don't think Neil's is being pharisaic in his statement. Some machines may
42 need repartitioning to make portage fit in /var. I've got at least one old
43 box where this would apply and will want to keep portage in /usr until I have
44 time to shift things around. It's not as simple as e.g. recreating your
45 xorg.conf to get yout X back, or disabling hal to find your mouse again.
46
47 Without adequate early warnings and suitable advice a good number of users
48 will complain that their machines are borked and blame the devs. That's why
49 I'm suggesting that manual intervention should work as a check that the user
50 knows what their doing.
51
52 Packages that barf if /usr/portage is changed (don't know of any) will need to
53 be managed via bug reports, or hopefully their devs will be clued enough to
54 head this off at the pass.
55
56 Anyway, just my 2c's.
57 --
58 Regards,
59 Mick

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>