| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:56 PM Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > |
| 6 |
>> > So, considering all the feedback from mailing list and IRC: |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > /usr/portage -> /var/db/repos/gentoo |
| 9 |
>> > /usr/portage/distfiles -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/distfiles |
| 10 |
>> > /usr/portage/packages -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/binpkgs |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> > Open question: Should we have the additional "gentoo" path component |
| 13 |
>> > for the ones in /var/cache? The tradeoff is between a path that is |
| 14 |
>> > easier to type, or slightly easier usage if someone wants to NFS mount |
| 15 |
>> > distfiles and binpkgs. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> That proposal has by vote of support. No strong preference on whether |
| 18 |
>> to include gentoo/ or not. It's one NFS mount vs two so not a big deal |
| 19 |
>> either way. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Why not stick the repos in /var/repos and not /var/db/repos? If we're |
| 23 |
> just making up paths, why not make up a shorter one? I don't think |
| 24 |
> any other linux distros use /var/db... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That would be fine with me as well :) |
Archives