| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 27/03/12 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> All, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the |
| 8 |
> specific objections were. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was |
| 11 |
> chatting with another developer who uses |
| 12 |
> /var/cache/portage/{tree,distfiles}, and I'm thinking about |
| 13 |
> switching my default setup to do this. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I realize that historically the portage tree has been installed |
| 16 |
> under /usr, but Can we consider changing this default for new |
| 17 |
> installations and providing instructions for users for how to get |
| 18 |
> the portage tree out of /usr? William |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
IIRC, 'cache' can be a volatile storage area, that is, anything in it |
| 22 |
can be removed. One's system is b0rked (or at least, portage is) if |
| 23 |
/path/to/portage/profiles goes missing. I wholeheartedly agree that |
| 24 |
distfiles should be moved to /var , but I think the portage tree |
| 25 |
shouldn't be there.. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
(at least, shouldn't be in /var/cache/ ; maybe /var/lib/ ? of course |
| 28 |
then we're colliding with the existing use of /var/lib/portage ...) |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk9yEmYACgkQAJxUfCtlWe0FNAEAyD6zMS/R7P0kltN6J84kAOkM |
| 33 |
5LHcznZRWnn6WFyy4CIA+wXNkzDQ5Pim/hqxHylSILlmUUkb+96KvkjX/mmO03eU |
| 34 |
=VVCn |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives