Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

[Brian Dolbec]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:35:41 -0700
Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:49:37 -0700
> > Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In that case, I vote for /var/cache/portage, since that's
> > > literally what purpose it serves.  Namely, the cache of the
> > > gentoo infra's current copy of teh portage tree.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Raymond Jennings
> > > > <shentino@×××××.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Just for the record, but would putting a setting inside
> > > >> /etc/portage/make.conf be the appropriate way to handle this?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > The settings already exist (and have existed for 10 years.) This
> > > > bikeshed discussion is literally trying to decide what the
> > > > default should be.
> > > >
> > > > -A
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > This is not a personal attack against you.  Just picked this one to
> > say something again...
> >
> >
> > PLEASE, PLEASE stop calling it the "portage" tree.  The repo name is
> > "gentoo".  "portage is the default package manager, but not the only
> > choice.  Far too often, it takes awhile to figure out what someone
> > is trying to say because of that confusion between the tree and the
> > package manager.
>
> Point of order:
>
> http://distfiles.gentoo.org/snapshots and numerous pieces of
> documentation call it "portage"
>
> The confusion is ingrained by documentation.
>

Yes, it is, and well we can't very well change the documentation until
we can get an end to this new default path bikeshed.  Council will
need to make the decision (soon I hope)...  Then we make all the changes
necessary.


-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>