Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: gentoo-releng@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 21:35:32
Message-Id: 88409c1e-eb34-dad8-c524-2b44de5bc91b@iee.org
On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>>>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems >>>>> >>>> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. >>>> >>>> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage >>>> tarballs. >>>> >>>> When sys-apps/portage changes its internal defaults, I'd like for the >>>> upgrade process to call a tool that generates configuration files when >>>> necessary to ensure that the existing paths remain constant. >>> I think it should be possible for RelEng to make a start on catalyst >>> updates - is there anything that would inhibit going ahead with this, >>> potentially? >> No, nothing. Whatever catalyst puts it the default config will become >> our new default. > I would still like to see notice about what the new defaults are and how > to migrate current systems to them. > > > Thanks, > > William > >> -- >> Thanks, >> Zac >> > >
I'd like to propose that further to the discussion here on the -dev mailing list, the Council discuss and make a firm proposal on the new default paths, and then RelEng can make the appropriate updates to the catalyst builds. A news item can be compiled, with an appropriate wiki article perhaps on migration strategy (I may volunteer to format such a page with some appropriate guidance). Regards, Michael / veremitz.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature