* Mike Kazantsev (mk.frag...@gmail.com) [02.06.09 17:22]: > Answer in a neighbor thread reminded me of a question that puzzled me > from the start: what's the rationale behind moving layman tree > from /usr/portage/local to /usr/local/portage? > > I can see why all ebuilds belong in the same /usr/portage tree - > separate (optimized) fs, easy to backup (snapshot?) or omit from backup > (a lot of small files, completely irrelevant to system operation), easy > to share between several machines along w/ packages built from it, > and /usr/portage/packages should be inconsistent w/o layman tree, if > it's used at all... but moving it to /usr/local, which isn't used > by gentoo at all seem completely irrational to me, why? >
Well my backup strategy only saves the contents of /usr/local all other
things beneath /usr are easily recoverable. And since this place also
contains the local overlay with some handmade ebuilds, ebuilds from
b.g.o and no longer maintained ebuilds, I think this was a rather
intelligent move. And sometimes you do not want any further upgrade in
one of your layman overlays, so things might differ from the source and
are harder to recover than from the attic of portage. Or even the
overlay may vanish, but you need to keep the ebuilds. So you can sanely
do a backup just from /usr/local.
packages/ is another thing, because here is the most common use case
is to build them once and then share them between many computers. And in
such scenarios you mostly share the whole portage tree via nfs.
> Oh, and I know that I can keep it all in the same place, of course, and
> I always do just that, still...
>
> --
> Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net
Sebastian
--
" Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. " | _ ASCII ribbon campaign
Karl Marx | ( ) against HTML e-mail
s...@sti@N GÜNTHER | X against M$ attachments
mailto:sam...@guenther-roetgen.de | / \ www.asciiribbon.org
pgpdZJYn2p4bd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
