Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: location of portage tree
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:01:26
Message-Id: 1332918002.29064.140.camel@big_daddy.dol-sen.ca
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: location of portage tree by Kent Fredric
1 On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 08:25 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
2 > On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
3 > > All,
4 > >
5 > > I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
6 > > specific objections were.
7 > >
8 > > IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all.
9 > > I was chatting with another developer who uses
10 > > /var/cache/portage/{tree,distfiles}, and I'm thinking about switching my
11 > > default setup to do this.
12 > >
13 > > I realize that historically the portage tree has been installed under
14 > > /usr, but Can we consider changing this default for new installations
15 > > and providing instructions for users for how to get the portage tree out
16 > > of /usr?
17 > > William
18 > >
19 >
20 > I think I'd rather something closer to paludis's notion, don't assume
21 > its "portage", assume its a repository instead.
22 >
23 >
24 > /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
25 > /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
26 > /var/cache/distfiles/*
27 > /var/cache/packages/*
28 >
29 > Or something along those lines. ( And definitely with the default
30 > locations for distfiles and pkg's outside the repository tree instead
31 > of inside it )
32 >
33
34 I am very much in favor of moving all overlays and the main tree into a
35 common repos, or repositories directory in /var somewhere, maybe even
36 just /var/repos/gentoo, /var/repos/sunrise,... I see no need to put them
37 under cache/, etc.. Although under /var/db/ would be the one I'd prefer
38 from the choices.
39
40 Layman currently uses /var/lib/layman/overlay-name. It would be best I
41 feel to place them in one common location. I also feel the main tree
42 should be stored as the same name as it's repo_name value.
43
44 If it is done in some fashion like that. The package managers could
45 also be modified to automatically scan the base directory for valid
46 repositories without the need to have them specifically configured in
47 make.conf. Not to say that they cannot be set in make.conf, but would be
48 required for anything outside of that base dir.
49
50 While we're discussing repos location and naming in general, I recently
51 came upon a layman overlay (via bug 408897) that is listed as haskell in
52 layman, but it's repo_name value is gentoo-haskell. This was for the
53 glep 42 news reporting feature I just added to layman-2.0. I had to
54 patch layman to get around this issue of the mismatched names by getting
55 the correct name from portage which is needed for the portage
56 news-reporting function that layman will do after an add/sync
57 operation.
58
59 Is this something we should specify for them to match?
60 My thinking is that they should, at the very least, for consistency.
61
62 --
63 Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: location of portage tree Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>