| 1 |
As long as an announcement is made in advance (perhaps as a NEWS item) |
| 2 |
and portage itself is prepared to do an in-place migration if |
| 3 |
necessary, I think things will be fine. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout |
| 6 |
for awhile. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:24 AM Gordon Pettey <petteyg359@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt <anarchy@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > This is a mess, many systems are setup with portage already on a |
| 11 |
> > seperate partition for reasons. What advantage does it provide to move |
| 12 |
> > the tree now after all these years? I have seen nothing more then lets |
| 13 |
> > do this cause I like the ideal lately and it is getting old, there is no |
| 14 |
> > benefit that would justify moving the tree or many other changes that |
| 15 |
> > are being made in Gentoo lately. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 1. If you're able to mount /usr/portage from another filesystem, why |
| 18 |
> would you think it wouldn't work in with /var/cache/portage? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> 1a. If your system is already installed, why do you think this even |
| 21 |
> affects you? Did you read? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> 2. Pretty sure following FHS more closely is something most people |
| 24 |
> would see as a benefit. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I agree on this point, and I always found /usr/portage to be...well, strange. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
For me, though, the most important issue is giving end users advanced |
| 31 |
notice and making sure nothing breaks. |
Archives