| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:05:54PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> All, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the |
| 5 |
> specific objections were. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. |
| 8 |
> I was chatting with another developer who uses |
| 9 |
> /var/cache/portage/{tree,distfiles}, and I'm thinking about switching my |
| 10 |
> default setup to do this. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I realize that historically the portage tree has been installed under |
| 13 |
> /usr, but Can we consider changing this default for new installations |
| 14 |
> and providing instructions for users for how to get the portage tree out |
| 15 |
> of /usr? |
| 16 |
> William |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If/when this happens, we should also consider improving the internal |
| 19 |
structure of the portage folder. At the moment we just throw everything |
| 20 |
in it, which is not very user friendly. I recommend creating a subfolder |
| 21 |
for the actual tree, keeping distfiles and packages out. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
For example, my /usr/portage/ on this system looks like this: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
portage/ |
| 26 |
tree/ |
| 27 |
profiles/ -> tree/profiles/ |
| 28 |
distfiles/ |
| 29 |
packages/ |
| 30 |
layman/ |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
it is a big improvement over the current |
| 33 |
distfiles-and-packages-mixed-with-tree-while-layman-wanders state :) |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Alex Alexander | wired |
| 36 |
+ Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 37 |
++ www.linuxized.com |
Archives