| 1 |
On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>>>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems |
| 9 |
>>>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>>> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. |
| 11 |
>>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>>> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage |
| 13 |
>>>>>> tarballs. |
| 14 |
>>>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>>>> When sys-apps/portage changes its internal defaults, I'd like for the |
| 16 |
>>>>>> upgrade process to call a tool that generates configuration files when |
| 17 |
>>>>>> necessary to ensure that the existing paths remain constant. |
| 18 |
>>>>> I think it should be possible for RelEng to make a start on catalyst |
| 19 |
>>>>> updates - is there anything that would inhibit going ahead with this, |
| 20 |
>>>>> potentially? |
| 21 |
>>>> No, nothing. Whatever catalyst puts it the default config will become |
| 22 |
>>>> our new default. |
| 23 |
>>> I would still like to see notice about what the new defaults are and how |
| 24 |
>>> to migrate current systems to them. |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> Thanks, |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>>> William |
| 30 |
>>> |
| 31 |
>>>> -- |
| 32 |
>>>> Thanks, |
| 33 |
>>>> Zac |
| 34 |
>>>> |
| 35 |
>>> |
| 36 |
>>> |
| 37 |
>> I'd like to propose that further to the discussion here on the -dev |
| 38 |
>> mailing list, the Council discuss and make a firm proposal on the new |
| 39 |
>> default paths, and then RelEng can make the appropriate updates to the |
| 40 |
>> catalyst builds. A news item can be compiled, with an appropriate wiki |
| 41 |
>> article perhaps on migration strategy (I may volunteer to format such a |
| 42 |
>> page with some appropriate guidance). |
| 43 |
>> Regards, |
| 44 |
>> Michael / veremitz. |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
> This is a mess, many systems are setup with portage already on a |
| 47 |
> seperate partition for reasons. What advantage does it provide to move |
| 48 |
> the tree now after all these years? I have seen nothing more then lets |
| 49 |
> do this cause I like the ideal lately and it is getting old, there is no |
| 50 |
> benefit that would justify moving the tree or many other changes that |
| 51 |
> are being made in Gentoo lately. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
People who want to move it could just set PORTDIR in make.conf. I don't |
| 54 |
see any reason to move it either. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
Archives