| 1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'd suggest refactoring this a bit. We have a couple of directories. |
| 4 |
> We need to establish the base, and then the directory name under that. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> We have: |
| 7 |
> distfiles |
| 8 |
> packages |
| 9 |
> main repo |
| 10 |
> overlays |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> These can go under: |
| 13 |
> /var/db |
| 14 |
> /var/cache |
| 15 |
> /var/lib |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> You have just about every sane permutation of these as options, so I |
| 18 |
> suggest considering the two separately. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I think the pros/cons of the second question have already been hashed |
| 21 |
> out. I tend to agree with the /var/lib arguments for all but |
| 22 |
> distfiles (FHS directly gives the example of browser cache in |
| 23 |
> /var/cache, and that is very much what distfiles is). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Agreed, so far. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> For the directory under each I suggest a gentoo/portage parent |
| 28 |
> directory, and then a tree underneath: |
| 29 |
> .../gentoo/repos/gentoo (this is PMS) |
| 30 |
> .../gentoo/repos/myoverlay (this is PMS) |
| 31 |
> .../gentoo/packages (I'm not sure if this is PMS - move to portage if not) |
| 32 |
> .../gentoo/distfiles (I don't think this is PMS, but it is so |
| 33 |
> generic that it probably should be considered shared) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Why the "gentoo" path component? That's not a package, and therefore |
| 36 |
not compliant with the FHS. (Or even worse, it actually _is_ a |
| 37 |
package, namely app-misc/gentoo.) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> .../portage/edb (I think this is portage-specific) |
| 40 |
> .../portage/pkg (I think this is also portage-specific) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> Stuff that is specific to portage and not specified in PMS would go in |
| 43 |
> .../portage. Stuff that is PMS-specified would go in .../gentoo. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Note that not all these directories need be under the same base. We |
| 46 |
> could have /var/lib/gentoo/repos, and /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles. |
| 47 |
> So, the base needs to be decided for each. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> Finally, my list of final recommendations given this framework: |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> /var/lib/gentoo/repos/gentoo (I'm fine with cache here as well) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Here we're at 5 path components again. I will likely vote against any |
| 54 |
proposal that would put the tree such deep in the hierarchy. And the |
| 55 |
double "gentoo" adds some extra ugliness. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> /var/cache/gentoo/packages (These are package builds and are |
| 58 |
> completely reproducible.) |
| 59 |
> /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles (This is literally a network cache/mirror) |
| 60 |
> /var/cache/portage/edb (This is portage-specific, |
| 61 |
> but it can be regenerated) |
| 62 |
> /var/lib/portage/pkg (This is the must-preserve |
| 63 |
> metadata state of the system, in portage's internal format.) |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Why not keep this at /var/db/pkg? That's the path mentioned in PMS. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
> /var/lib/portage/world (Current state - at least |
| 68 |
> something is already in the right place...) |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Ulrich |
Archives