Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:34:39
Message-Id: FCA9B84D-8ED0-4BE3-8D47-11ECA4B627D5@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree by Rich Freeman
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:36 AM Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: >> >> I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout >> for awhile. >> > > I don't see why we would ever stop supporting it, at least in general. > Maybe if some day somebody had a solution for a read-only /usr with > signature checking that might require portage to be mounted elsewhere, > but I don't ever see that becoming the default. > > Portage just looks for the repository where you tell it to. If you > tell it that the repository is in /var, it will use it. If you put it > in /tmp, that's fine too. > > This is just about the default, which should follow FHS. The case of > separate mounts is exactly why /usr is a bad spot - the access > patterns for something like the repository have far more in common > with /var than /usr.
On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to have on,h top level directories be separate mountpoints.
> > -- > Rich >

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>