| 1 |
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:36 AM Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout |
| 6 |
>> for awhile. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I don't see why we would ever stop supporting it, at least in general. |
| 10 |
> Maybe if some day somebody had a solution for a read-only /usr with |
| 11 |
> signature checking that might require portage to be mounted elsewhere, |
| 12 |
> but I don't ever see that becoming the default. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Portage just looks for the repository where you tell it to. If you |
| 15 |
> tell it that the repository is in /var, it will use it. If you put it |
| 16 |
> in /tmp, that's fine too. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This is just about the default, which should follow FHS. The case of |
| 19 |
> separate mounts is exactly why /usr is a bad spot - the access |
| 20 |
> patterns for something like the repository have far more in common |
| 21 |
> with /var than /usr. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to have on,h top level directories be separate mountpoints. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> -- |
| 26 |
> Rich |
| 27 |
> |
Archives