Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:41:50
Message-Id: CAGfcS_k2JO_MtEK4GRYzJ2Q2+LxVUEa-iKR_D_bH1EzsfNv6vg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29 by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:20 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > >>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
4 >
5 > > For the directory under each I suggest a gentoo/portage parent
6 > > directory, and then a tree underneath:
7 > > .../gentoo/repos/gentoo (this is PMS)
8 > > .../gentoo/repos/myoverlay (this is PMS)
9 > > .../gentoo/packages (I'm not sure if this is PMS - move to portage if not)
10 > > .../gentoo/distfiles (I don't think this is PMS, but it is so
11 > > generic that it probably should be considered shared)
12 >
13 > Why the "gentoo" path component? That's not a package, and therefore
14 > not compliant with the FHS. (Or even worse, it actually _is_ a
15 > package, namely app-misc/gentoo.)
16
17 From FHS:
18 /var/lib/<name> is the location that must be used for all distribution
19 packaging support. Different distributions may use different names, of
20 course.
21
22 p34: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.pdf
23
24 >
25 > > /var/lib/gentoo/repos/gentoo (I'm fine with cache here as well)
26 >
27 > Here we're at 5 path components again. I will likely vote against any
28 > proposal that would put the tree such deep in the hierarchy. And the
29 > double "gentoo" adds some extra ugliness.
30
31 Well, /var/lib/<something> is 3 right there. If 5 is no good then you
32 only have one left. We could just make it /var/lib/repos which seems
33 non-compliant. Or we can make it /var/lib/gentoo/myoverlay which is
34 great until we have an overlay called distfiles or whatever.
35
36 And if it is just the double gentoo I guess there is /var/lib/gentoo/repos/main
37
38 Unless we want to put overlays somewhere entirely different, in which
39 case we could just use /var/lib/gentoo/repo I guess. But, I think it
40 makes more sense to view the gentoo repo as just the main repo out of
41 many.
42
43 > > /var/cache/gentoo/packages (These are package builds and are
44 > > completely reproducible.)
45 > > /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles (This is literally a network cache/mirror)
46 > > /var/cache/portage/edb (This is portage-specific,
47 > > but it can be regenerated)
48 > > /var/lib/portage/pkg (This is the must-preserve
49 > > metadata state of the system, in portage's internal format.)
50 >
51 > Why not keep this at /var/db/pkg? That's the path mentioned in PMS.
52
53 Why not put all of this stuff in /var/db? Or in /var/gentoo? Or in /gentoo?
54
55 It isn't FHS. FHS actually specifically says that stuff in /var/db
56 should go to /var/lib/misc or a pkg-specific directory (p35 footnote 5
57 - above link). Yeah, I get that BSD sticks it in /var/db. But BSD
58 also sticks the repo in /usr/ports.
59
60 But, if you want to leave /var/db/pkg alone at least moving the rest
61 is a step in the right direction.
62
63 --
64 Rich

Replies