Re: [gentoo-dev] /usr/portage --> /var/portage

[Paul de Vrieze]

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:54:24PM -0500, in <874quwyj1r.fsf@××××××××.cx>,

> '/usr/portage' is the wrong place for the Portage tree. The data is
> certainly sharable, but certainly *not* static. Furthermore, FHS states
> "Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the
> /usr hierarchy." The Portage tree should be moved, for FHS compliance,
> for the reasons listed in the FHS rationale, and for the reasons discussed
> elsewhere in this thread.
>
> But to where?
>
> The catch is this: if the machine in question is running on a network that
> actually *shares* its sharable data (e.g. the /usr hierarchy), it makes
> sense to put the the Portage tree somewhere under /usr. Except during sync
> operations (which would be performed by the host serving the /usr tree),
> the Portage tree remains generally unmodified, so it fits the requirement
> of "...read-only data ... must not be written to." Even though many
> files in the Portage tree are architecture-specific, _the_tree_itself_
> is architecture- and host-independent.
>
> Unfortunately, a Gentoo machine is a very dynamic environment. The Portage
> tree changes drastically and often. On a machine which maintains its own
> Portage tree, '/var' is absolutely the right place to look. FHS provides
> two likely options: '/var/cache' (application cache data) and '/var/lib'
> (variable state data). The DISTDIR, on the other hand, is much less
> dynamic and could still find a home under '/usr'.

I would like to add that actually not all of the data in /usr/portage is
dispensible. If the profile directory is removed, emerge will not work (we
might be able to fix this). Further in the /var/cache/edb dir there are
files that are not caches in that sense of the word. They are also not
replaceable. So I think if we want to have this discussion we need to look
at all files that are involved in portage.

Paul


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list