> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:42 PM, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:25:20PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>>> On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> This is a mess, many systems are setup with portage already on a
>>> seperate partition for reasons. What advantage does it provide to move
>>> the tree now after all these years? I have seen nothing more then lets
>>> do this cause I like the ideal lately and it is getting old, there is no
>>> benefit that would justify moving the tree or many other changes that
>>> are being made in Gentoo lately.
>>
>> People who want to move it could just set PORTDIR in make.conf. I don't
>> see any reason to move it either.
>
> Actually, I believe that PORTDIR is becoming a thing of the past.
I used to use it 5 years ago. If it does not work due to regressions, we should
fix that.
>
> Also, the default definitely should not be on /usr per fhs. This would
> allow /usr to be mounted read only.
> This doesn't affect things like the example above where /usr/portage is
> a mount point.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
