| 1 |
On Thursday 15 January 2004 12:06, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 22:48, Meder Bakirov wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi all! |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I just wanted to ask: can we expect, in future versions of a Gentoo |
| 6 |
> > Linux, a move of /usr/portage to /var/portage as the most appropriate |
| 7 |
> > place to store frequently changing portage tree? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I guess, it (Gentoo) would then suit most admins, willing to have a |
| 10 |
> > Gentoo Linux on their servers (I use Gentoo on my servers :-P). Because, |
| 11 |
> > for example, in my case, I have /usr always mounted ro (read-only) in |
| 12 |
> > fstab, remounting it rw (read-write) for critical updates only (when I |
| 13 |
> > emerge some new apps; e.g. security updates) |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > How does it intersect with FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard)? |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Thank you very much! |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > With the best regards, |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Meder |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > -- |
| 25 |
> > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> You can set PORTDIR to point your portage tree wherever you like. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Yes, I already do so now! :) But how about future versions of Gentoo Linux? |
| 30 |
Doesn't /var suits better (by default), than /usr in case of FHS? Or is it |
| 31 |
due to the BSD's fashion of storing ports in /usr/ports? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thank you very much :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
With the best regards, |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Meder |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives