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 22:32:14
Message-Id: 1B79D82F-37A3-4E73-84B6-6911FBC38162@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree by Rich Freeman
1 > On Jul 11, 2018, at 6:24 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
4 >>
5 >> Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage tree is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true of everything else in /usr.
6 >>
7 >
8 > It is application metadata. It belongs in /var. No other packages
9 > write to /usr when they're doing internal updates. Obviously you need
10 > a writable /usr to actually install package changes, but that
11 > shouldn't be necessary just to sync the repository.
12 >
13 > I was asking around and it seems like most distros stick their
14 > repositories in /var/lib. I can't imagine that too many would have
15 > even considered sticking them in /usr.
16 I would consider the package manager to be special in that it is a step of the system update process, but I agree that it could be nicer to have in /var.
17
18 We have a problem using /var/lib because /var/lib/portage is already in use. I guess /var/portage is not a terrible choice.
19 >
20 >> I am confused as to how we only now realized it was a FHS violation when it has been there for ~15 years. I was under the impression that /usr was the correct place for it.
21 >
22 > It has certainly been pointed out in the past. Nothing was changed
23 > for the same reason that nothing will probably be changed this time -
24 > people don't like change and the people who know better just slowly
25 > patch around Gentoo's oddities. Somebody was just posting a manifesto
26 > about deploying more experimental technologies, and here we can't move
27 > a repository out of /usr.
28 >
29 > And if nothing else, can we at least move /usr/portage/distfiles
30 > someplace else? Surely you have to agree that this doesn't belong in
31 > usr, or nested in the middle of a repository?
32 Well, if it is changed during system updates, then the same logic applies, but quite honestly, I never liked having the distfiles or packages directories there. You can have unnecessary headaches when mounting inside a mount point other than /.
33 >
34 > --
35 > Rich
36 >

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" <gentoo@×××.name>