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

[Richard Yao]

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:
>>
>> On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to have on,h top level directories be separate mountpoints.
>
> It makes sense to follow FHS.  Sure, I can work around poor designs by
> sticking mount points all over the place, or manually setting my
> config to put stuff in sane locations.  It makes more sense to put all
> the volatile stuff in /var, than to mix it up all over the place and
> get users to set up separate mountpoints to make up for it.

Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage tree is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true of everything else in /usr.

I am confused as to how we only now realized it was a FHS violation when it has been there for ~15 years. I was under the impression that /usr was the correct place for it.
>
> If somebody is doing a new Gentoo install, why would they want to put
> the repository in /usr, and nest a few GB of distfiles inside of the
> repo?  Why should that be the place we direct them?  There is no
> history for them.  A brand new install should put things in the most
> logical place.
>
> By all means let existing users decide whether to move stuff.  I'm
> sure we have plenty of users with make.conf in /etc/.
>
> --
> Rich
>