| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:56 PM Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > So, considering all the feedback from mailing list and IRC: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > /usr/portage -> /var/db/repos/gentoo |
| 8 |
> > /usr/portage/distfiles -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/distfiles |
| 9 |
> > /usr/portage/packages -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/binpkgs |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Open question: Should we have the additional "gentoo" path component |
| 12 |
> > for the ones in /var/cache? The tradeoff is between a path that is |
| 13 |
> > easier to type, or slightly easier usage if someone wants to NFS mount |
| 14 |
> > distfiles and binpkgs. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That proposal has by vote of support. No strong preference on whether |
| 17 |
> to include gentoo/ or not. It's one NFS mount vs two so not a big deal |
| 18 |
> either way. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Why not stick the repos in /var/repos and not /var/db/repos? If we're |
| 22 |
just making up paths, why not make up a shorter one? I don't think |
| 23 |
any other linux distros use /var/db... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives