| 1 |
On 03/27/12 15:13, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/27/2012 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> All, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the |
| 6 |
>> specific objections were. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was |
| 9 |
>> chatting with another developer who uses |
| 10 |
>> /var/cache/portage/{tree,distfiles}, and I'm thinking about |
| 11 |
>> switching my default setup to do this. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> I realize that historically the portage tree has been installed |
| 14 |
>> under /usr, but Can we consider changing this default for new |
| 15 |
>> installations and providing instructions for users for how to get |
| 16 |
>> the portage tree out of /usr? William |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> But, that'd violate the spirit of usrmove! |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Seriously, I don't have a strong opinion on it either way. It should |
| 22 |
> be placed in /var as a way to kind of hint that the files there |
| 23 |
> shouldn't be edited. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> - Aaron |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
To be honest, the location should not matter. As long as make.conf sets |
| 29 |
PORTAGE_DIR correctly, we can put it anywhere. With that said, |
| 30 |
/var/portage might better reflect the variable nature of the tree, but I |
| 31 |
don't think that would imply that it should not be edited. |
Archives