| 1 |
On 29 March 2012 07:43, Aaron W. Swenson <titanofold@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> So, we're all getting way off topic and discussing reorganizing the |
| 4 |
> whole enchilada. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> How about we all agree or disagree on the primary point: The Portage |
| 7 |
> tree doesn't belong in /usr. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
+1 |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I believe that it does belong under /var/cache/. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> =0 # Not sure , semantically it doesn't make sense as its not behaving as |
| 16 |
a caching mechanism of any kind and would rather /var/portage or |
| 17 |
/var/lib/portage or something in that direction over /var/cache . I'd even |
| 18 |
prefer /var/lib/repositories/portage over /var/cache/portage/ |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> We can go a bit further and make it /var/cache/gentoo-repos/portage/. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> That way Layman and friends can all make the move there quite simply |
| 25 |
> without major infrastructure changes. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> The Portage PMS on it's next release would just do a 'mkdir |
| 28 |
> /var/cache/gentoo-repos/portage/ && sync && rm -rf /usr/portage && |
| 29 |
> echo "Portage has moved"' on its next 'emerge --sync' while still |
| 30 |
> looking in both locations for packages. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I'd rather this change not be automatic, and should be driven by ENV |
| 33 |
variables, and the new layout be a default layout for new systems, and |
| 34 |
write an e-news article describing the default change and how to migrate to |
| 35 |
the new layout for people who want to. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Kent |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) |
| 42 |
for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz |
Archives