Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Update /usr/portage references (bug 378603)
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 07:30:34
Message-Id: 20180806003031.75f4132d@professor-x
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Update /usr/portage references (bug 378603) by Zac Medico
1 On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 22:46:58 -0700
2 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On 08/05/2018 09:59 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
5 > >>>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2018, Zac Medico wrote:
6 > >
7 > >> --- a/cnf/make.conf.example
8 > >> +++ b/cnf/make.conf.example
9 > >> [...]
10 > >
11 > >> @@ -119,16 +119,16 @@
12 > >> # fetched on demand for a given build. If you would like to
13 > >> # selectively prune obsolete files from this directory, see
14 > >> # eclean from the gentoolkit package. Note that locations
15 > >> under -# /usr/portage are not necessarily safe for data
16 > >> storage. See the +# /var/db/repos/gentoo are not necessarily
17 > >> safe for data storage. See the # PORTDIR documentation for
18 > >> more information. -#DISTDIR=/usr/portage/distfiles
19 > >> +#DISTDIR=/var/db/repos/gentoo/distfiles
20 > >
21 > > Shouldn't this be /var/cache/distfiles ...
22 > >
23 > >> #
24 > >> # PKGDIR is the location of binary packages that you can have
25 > >> created # with '--buildpkg' or '-b' while emerging a package.
26 > >> This can get # up to several hundred megs, or even a few gigs.
27 > >> Note that -# locations under /usr/portage are not necessarily
28 > >> safe for data +# locations under /var/db/repos/gentoo are not
29 > >> necessarily safe for data # storage. See the PORTDIR
30 > >> documentation for more information. -#PKGDIR=/usr/portage/packages
31 > >> +#PKGDIR=/var/db/repos/gentoo/packages
32 > >
33 > > ... and /var/cache/binpkgs?
34 >
35 > Thanks, I've fixed the /var/cache/{distfiles,binpkgs} locations in v2.
36 >
37 > >> --- a/lib/portage/cache/flat_hash.py
38 > >> +++ b/lib/portage/cache/flat_hash.py
39 > >> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ class database(fs_template.FsBased):
40 > >> # Only recurse 1 deep, in
41 > >> order to avoid iteration over # entries from another nested cache
42 > >> instance. This can # happen if the user nests an overlay inside
43 > >> - # /usr/portage/local as
44 > >> in bug #302764.
45 > >> +
46 > >> # /var/db/repos/gentoo/local as in bug #302764.
47 > >
48 > > Shouldn't a local overlay be in /var/db/repos/local, but never
49 > > inside of the gentoo repo?
50 >
51 > Yes, but for a long time /usr/local/portage was somewhat standard, in
52 > fact it's still mentioned here:
53 >
54 > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Custom_repository
55 >
56 > Nowadays, repository verification will prevent that from working...
57 >
58
59 But that too can be changed along with all the user install
60 documentation which will need to be updated as well. The new
61 recomended location should be /var/db/repos/local. I will be updating
62 layman for /var/db/repos/... as well. That is the intention of the
63 "repos/" subdir.
64
65 All these changes as well as the catlayst changes need to be
66 co-ordinated so that snapshots and portage and stages don't precede the
67 docs changes.
68
69
70 > >> --- a/man/make.conf.5
71 > >> +++ b/man/make.conf.5
72 > >> @@ -219,10 +219,10 @@ Use the \fBPORTAGE_RO_DISTDIRS\fR variable
73 > >> to specify one or more read-only directories containing distfiles.
74 > >>
75 > >> Note
76 > >> -that locations under /usr/portage are not necessarily safe for
77 > >> data storage. +that locations under /var/db/repos/gentoo are not
78 > >> necessarily safe for data storage.
79 > >
80 > > IMHO this statement should be made much stronger.
81 >
82 > Yes, we could also say something about repository verification here.
83 > The old defaults set a really bad example, so we needed statements
84 > like this to steer people in the right direction.
85 > --
86 > Thanks,
87 > Zac
88 >

Replies