1 |
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:24:20PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage tree is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true of everything else in /usr. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> |
7 |
> It is application metadata. It belongs in /var. No other packages |
8 |
> write to /usr when they're doing internal updates. Obviously you need |
9 |
> a writable /usr to actually install package changes, but that |
10 |
> shouldn't be necessary just to sync the repository. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I was asking around and it seems like most distros stick their |
13 |
> repositories in /var/lib. I can't imagine that too many would have |
14 |
> even considered sticking them in /usr. |
15 |
|
16 |
That is the other part of this debate, some are saying /var/lib, and |
17 |
others are saying /var/db. |
18 |
|
19 |
It turns out that /var/db is much more common than I thought it was |
20 |
(it exists in all *bsd variants at least), so that could be an argument |
21 |
for putting the repos in there. |
22 |
|
23 |
> > I am confused as to how we only now realized it was a FHS violation when it has been there for ~15 years. I was under the impression that /usr was the correct place for it. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> It has certainly been pointed out in the past. Nothing was changed |
26 |
> for the same reason that nothing will probably be changed this time - |
27 |
> people don't like change and the people who know better just slowly |
28 |
> patch around Gentoo's oddities. Somebody was just posting a manifesto |
29 |
> about deploying more experimental technologies, and here we can't move |
30 |
> a repository out of /usr. |
31 |
|
32 |
Another reason this couldn't be changed in the past was catalyst had a |
33 |
lot of hard coded references to /usr/portage. This has been fixe. in |
34 |
catalyst-3 and I understand that releng is now using catalyst-3. |
35 |
|
36 |
William |