Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

[William Hubbs]

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.

> >
> >
> >
>
>