| 1 |
On Wed, 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> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout |
| 7 |
> > for awhile. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I don't see why we would ever stop supporting it, at least in general. |
| 11 |
> Maybe if some day somebody had a solution for a read-only /usr with |
| 12 |
> signature checking that might require portage to be mounted elsewhere, |
| 13 |
> but I don't ever see that becoming the default. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Portage just looks for the repository where you tell it to. If you |
| 16 |
> tell it that the repository is in /var, it will use it. If you put it |
| 17 |
> in /tmp, that's fine too. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
+1 to this. The challenge (in moving it) is that its been "/usr/portage" |
| 21 |
for a long time so many tools |
| 22 |
may have hard coded this location; as opposed to querying portage for where |
| 23 |
the tree is, e.g.: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
PORTDIR=$(portageq get_repo_path / gentoo) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-A |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> This is just about the default, which should follow FHS. The case of |
| 31 |
> separate mounts is exactly why /usr is a bad spot - the access |
| 32 |
> patterns for something like the repository have far more in common |
| 33 |
> with /var than /usr. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
> Rich |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
Archives