Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 20:16:34
Message-Id: 23390.8344.480521.160592@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29) by Brian Dolbec
1 >>>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Brian Dolbec wrote:
2
3 > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:31:15 +0200
4 > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
5
6 >> >>>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Corentin “Nado” Pazdera wrote:
7 >>
8 >> > From the same source
9 >> > "No other requirements are made on the data format of the cache
10 >> > directories."
11 >> > And as you have quoted it, everything under /var/cache is
12 >> > optional.
13 >>
14 >> > So anything which doesn't conflict with another package seems
15 >> > fine according to FHS.
16 >>
17 >> That's how I would read it, too. We could of course invent a
18 >> package name (like "package-manager" for virtual/package-manager)
19 >> but it seems cumbersome, and I don't see any benefit of it.
20 >>
21 >> There also is /var/cache/fonts, so the FHS itself lists an example
22 >> of a directory that's not named after a specific package.
23
24 > /var/db/repos/gentoo
25 > /var/cache/distfiles
26 > /var/cache/binpkgs
27
28 For the record, these three paths have been approved in today's
29 Council meeting.
30
31 > Works for me, just please keep "portage" out of it, after all
32 > distfiles are not restricted to portage use only, and neither are
33 > binpkgs. There is alternate binpkg installers.
34
35 By another Council vote, snapshot names should be changed from
36 portage-YYYYMMDD.tar.{bz2,xz} to gentoo-YYYYMMDD.tar.{bz2,xz}.
37
38 So, no "portage" any more. ;)
39
40 Ulrich