Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Update /usr/portage references (bug 378603)

[Zac Medico]

On 08/05/2018 09:59 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2018, Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> --- a/cnf/make.conf.example
>> +++ b/cnf/make.conf.example
>> [...]
>
>> @@ -119,16 +119,16 @@
>>  #     fetched on demand for a given build. If you would like to
>>  #     selectively prune obsolete files from this directory, see
>>  #     eclean from the gentoolkit package. Note that locations under
>> -#     /usr/portage are not necessarily safe for data storage. See the
>> +#     /var/db/repos/gentoo are not necessarily safe for data storage. See the
>>  #     PORTDIR documentation for more information.
>> -#DISTDIR=/usr/portage/distfiles
>> +#DISTDIR=/var/db/repos/gentoo/distfiles
>
> Shouldn't this be /var/cache/distfiles ...
>
>>  #
>>  # PKGDIR is the location of binary packages that you can have created
>>  #     with '--buildpkg' or '-b' while emerging a package. This can get
>>  #     up to several hundred megs, or even a few gigs. Note that
>> -#     locations under /usr/portage are not necessarily safe for data
>> +#     locations under /var/db/repos/gentoo are not necessarily safe for data
>>  #     storage. See the PORTDIR documentation for more information.
>> -#PKGDIR=/usr/portage/packages
>> +#PKGDIR=/var/db/repos/gentoo/packages
>
> ... and /var/cache/binpkgs?

Thanks, I've fixed the /var/cache/{distfiles,binpkgs} locations in v2.

>> --- a/lib/portage/cache/flat_hash.py
>> +++ b/lib/portage/cache/flat_hash.py
>> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ class database(fs_template.FsBased):
>>  					# Only recurse 1 deep, in order to avoid iteration over
>>  					# entries from another nested cache instance. This can
>>  					# happen if the user nests an overlay inside
>> -					# /usr/portage/local as in bug #302764.
>> +					# /var/db/repos/gentoo/local as in bug #302764.
>
> Shouldn't a local overlay be in /var/db/repos/local, but never inside
> of the gentoo repo?

Yes, but for a long time /usr/local/portage was somewhat standard, in
fact it's still mentioned here:

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Custom_repository

Nowadays, repository verification will prevent that from working...

>> --- a/man/make.conf.5
>> +++ b/man/make.conf.5
>> @@ -219,10 +219,10 @@ Use the \fBPORTAGE_RO_DISTDIRS\fR variable to specify one or
>>  more read-only directories containing distfiles.
>>
>>  Note
>> -that locations under /usr/portage are not necessarily safe for data storage.
>> +that locations under /var/db/repos/gentoo are not necessarily safe for data storage.
>
> IMHO this statement should be made much stronger.

Yes, we could also say something about repository verification here. The
old defaults set a really bad example, so we needed statements like this
to steer people in the right direction.
--
Thanks,
Zac