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 22:07:41
Message-Id: FEDB0CB4-BBAD-4B51-B0BE-E3A748A0D365@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree by William Hubbs
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:42 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:25:20PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: >>>> On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>>>> On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >>>>>>> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>>>>>>>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage >>>>>>>> tarballs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When sys-apps/portage changes its internal defaults, I'd like for the >>>>>>>> upgrade process to call a tool that generates configuration files when >>>>>>>> necessary to ensure that the existing paths remain constant. >>>>>>> I think it should be possible for RelEng to make a start on catalyst >>>>>>> updates - is there anything that would inhibit going ahead with this, >>>>>>> potentially? >>>>>> No, nothing. Whatever catalyst puts it the default config will become >>>>>> our new default. >>>>> I would still like to see notice about what the new defaults are and how >>>>> to migrate current systems to them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> William >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Zac >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I'd like to propose that further to the discussion here on the -dev >>>> mailing list, the Council discuss and make a firm proposal on the new >>>> default paths, and then RelEng can make the appropriate updates to the >>>> catalyst builds. A news item can be compiled, with an appropriate wiki >>>> article perhaps on migration strategy (I may volunteer to format such a >>>> page with some appropriate guidance). >>>> Regards, >>>> Michael / veremitz. >>>> >>> This is a mess, many systems are setup with portage already on a >>> seperate partition for reasons. What advantage does it provide to move >>> the tree now after all these years? I have seen nothing more then lets >>> do this cause I like the ideal lately and it is getting old, there is no >>> benefit that would justify moving the tree or many other changes that >>> are being made in Gentoo lately. >> >> People who want to move it could just set PORTDIR in make.conf. I don't >> see any reason to move it either. > > Actually, I believe that PORTDIR is becoming a thing of the past.
I used to use it 5 years ago. If it does not work due to regressions, we should fix that.
> > Also, the default definitely should not be on /usr per fhs. This would > allow /usr to be mounted read only. > This doesn't affect things like the example above where /usr/portage is > a mount point. > >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >