| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 20/12/12 12:52 PM, Vaeth wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> However, I have strong objections against using /var/cache at all: |
| 7 |
> FHS explicitly states: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> "Such data is locally generated ... The application must be able |
| 10 |
> to regenerate or restore the data." |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
emerge --sync <-- regenerates/restores the portage tree |
| 14 |
layman -s <-- regenerates/restores overlays |
| 15 |
emerge -f @world <-- regenerates/restores any distfiles of consequence |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
download-restricted data whose sole location is in a cache dir is a |
| 18 |
decision made by the user. Note that current portage has a |
| 19 |
PORTAGE_RO_DISTDIR var which could be used to specify the path to |
| 20 |
these fetch-restricted downloads rather than the user putting them |
| 21 |
directly into /var/cache/distfiles/. Maybe it would be pertinent to |
| 22 |
suggest and/or include a default path for this? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> What is really so bad about the current location under /usr as |
| 27 |
> default? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
There were some suggestions about this in the initial thread posts. |
| 31 |
But /usr/portage is certainly OK to remain as-is, we do not *need* to |
| 32 |
make any changes. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlDTU/AACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDmmwD/XIrHlMiDBU7WPUjp9DILJwuq |
| 39 |
fM/y5zUVZcoD2W7kcuEA/jPV9l1BH8qsw3UQxJKi6zbjBweD0uJU28jxiX2ybdjo |
| 40 |
=lBlR |
| 41 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives