1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> Users must never need to modify files in /var/lib to configure a |
4 |
>> package's operation, and _the_specific_file_hierarchy_ used to |
5 |
>> store the data _must_not_be_ _exposed_ to regular users." |
6 |
|
7 |
> One small note, while it is never needed to modify, skel.ebuild |
8 |
> would then be a file that is meant to be accessed by users in |
9 |
> /var/lib if your proposal is realized. |
10 |
|
11 |
That's one of the reasons why the proposal prefers /var/db. The other |
12 |
reason is existing usage in eselect-repository. |
13 |
|
14 |
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
15 |
|
16 |
> In my understanding, a cache is typically an open collection of items. |
17 |
> Some subset of them can be deleted without much negative consequence, |
18 |
> and there may also be surplus items that are no longer necessary and |
19 |
> will be expired at some later time in order to reclaim disk space. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Nothing of this is true for an ebuild repository, which is a closed |
22 |
> collection of files: A single file cannot be discarded without |
23 |
> invalidating the whole repository. Also there cannot be any stray |
24 |
> files which would be expired later. Same as above, a single stray file |
25 |
> will invalidate all. |
26 |
|
27 |
> (A collection of binary packages may qualify as a cache though, by |
28 |
> this definition.) |
29 |
|
30 |
So, considering all the feedback from mailing list and IRC: |
31 |
|
32 |
/usr/portage -> /var/db/repos/gentoo |
33 |
/usr/portage/distfiles -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/distfiles |
34 |
/usr/portage/packages -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/binpkgs |
35 |
|
36 |
Open question: Should we have the additional "gentoo" path component |
37 |
for the ones in /var/cache? The tradeoff is between a path that is |
38 |
easier to type, or slightly easier usage if someone wants to NFS mount |
39 |
distfiles and binpkgs. |
40 |
|
41 |
Ulrich |