Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, "Jory A. Pratt" <anarchy@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:24:38
Message-Id: 19d05f13-9166-329e-3533-9920daf276fe@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree by "Jory A. Pratt"
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.
> > >

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>