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 |