Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:42:33
Message-Id: 20180711204225.GA497@linux1.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree by Richard Yao
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:25:20PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> 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.
Actually, I believe that PORTDIR is becoming a thing of the past. Also, the default definitely should not be on /usr per fhs. This would allow /usr to be mounted read only. This doesn't affect things like the example above where /usr/portage is a mount point.
> > > > > > > >

Attachments

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

Replies