On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.comwrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:23 on Sunday 06 February 2011, Mark
Shields
did opine thusly:
It's just plain outright stupid to have a default location for
something
(that
by definition is variable) in a
On Sunday 06 February 2011 20:03:13 Cedric Sodhi wrote:
please [...] keep it short, logical, and remain on topic if you have
any further points to add.
Remind me - what was the topic, again? Was there ever any point to it?
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
On Sunday 06 February 2011 20:03:13 Cedric Sodhi wrote:
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 05:54:19PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:53:20 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new
directory, the old tree would rot in /usr
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:55:37 +, Mick wrote:
It think this proposal (to only change portage for new installs) is
eminently doable, with enough early e-warnings about it and changes in
docs. It could be introduced with a change in the make.profile and
require explicit user intervention.
He already did. He was told to ask here. :-)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351463 (WONTFIX)
Ah, I see. So, gentoo-dev@ is the way to go :]
I can understand that we don't want to automatically change everyone's
installed Gentoo from /usr/portage to /var/portage but why not try to
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:49:30AM +0200, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
He already did. He was told to ask here. :-)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351463 (WONTFIX)
Ah, I see. So, gentoo-dev@ is the way to go :]
I can understand that we don't want to automatically change everyone's
Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
He already did. He was told to ask here. :-)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351463 (WONTFIX)
Ah, I see. So, gentoo-dev@ is the way to go :]
I can understand that we don't want to automatically change everyone's
installed Gentoo from /usr/portage to
Tradition is a much better reason to keep things the same. You need someone
to
make the change. Which is more than just move /usr/portage to /var or
wherever
you want it to be (and first: get consent about where to put it). No, you
have
to update documentation, make sure that there are not
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:31:49 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new directory,
the old tree would rot in /usr
And people would hit problems because /var bas filled up! I'm not saying
the current default is right, it's not, but you are
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:56:53AM +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:31:49 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new directory,
the old tree would rot in /usr
And people would hit problems because /var bas filled up! I'm not
I'd like to apologize for my last mail, it looks like I've credited you
with the wrong arguments. Latter argument, that the developers have
bigger issues at hand, has been made by another contributor, not the one
to whom I replied.
On 2/5/11, Cedric Sodhi man...@gmx.net wrote:
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
You should note that the portage part is wrong as well. The path
should be something like /var/db/gentoo-official-tree or some such to
On Sunday 06 February 2011 12:53:20 Cedric Sodhi wrote:
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:56:53AM +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:31:49 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new
directory,
the old tree would rot in /usr
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:53:20 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new
directory, the old tree would rot in /usr
And people would hit problems because /var bas filled up! I'm not
saying the current default is right, it's not, but you are
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 20:21 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
where do the bsds put their ports?
also: just set the PORTDIR variable wherever you want it to point. There is
no
reason to annoy the rest of humanity with a mailing list point complaining
about a perceived problem that is
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
/var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
with the portage tree.
It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and heavy
changes, which is
On Saturday 05 February 2011 19:43:11, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
/var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
with the portage tree.
It's possibly subject
Cedric Sodhi writes:
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
/var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
with the portage tree.
That's why I have /var/portage, with subdirectories tree,
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Cedric Sodhi man...@gmx.net wrote:
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
SNIP
I have no opinion on the subject really, but can't you build a link
from /usr/portage to anywhere you want
where do the bsds put their ports?
also: just set the PORTDIR variable wherever you want it to point. There is no
reason to annoy the rest of humanity with a mailing list point complaining
about a perceived problem that is none.
Apparently, though unproven, at 20:43 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Cedric
Sodhi did opine thusly:
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
I've been saying this for years. I always change PORTDIR everywhere to
Cedric Sodhi wrote:
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
/var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
with the portage tree.
It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and
Replying to the three before messages which basically made the point
that one can change the location manyually.
I'm aware of that and as I've pointed out I consider it irrelevant to
the point that I'm making (with which you appear to agree at least
principally), that is, that it should not be
You know... I appreciate all your helpful if you want to move portage
to /var you can do it by... 'suggestions', but, can you imagine the
following situation:
You push a change to a repository, on your way to work you realize that
there was an error in the commit so as soon as you get to work you
again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
/usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be the
appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical back then.
And if something is not broken, don't change it. You do not know what old
tool/setting/whatever
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:45 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Volker
Armin Hemmann did opine thusly:
again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
/usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be the
appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:45:23PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
/usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be the
appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical back then.
It was consistent back
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.comwrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:45 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Volker
Armin Hemmann did opine thusly:
again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
/usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history.
Cedric Sodhi writes:
Replying to the three before messages which basically made the point
that one can change the location manyually.
[...]
It does not conform with any accepted standard, it is wrong per se, it
should be changed.
THIS is the point, please, as I already said in my first
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:23 on Sunday 06 February 2011, Mark Shields
did opine thusly:
It's just plain outright stupid to have a default location for something
(that
by definition is variable) in a place that by definition (or by de-facto
consent) must be mountable read-only
On Saturday 05 February 2011 23:52:20 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:45 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Volker
Armin Hemmann did opine thusly:
again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
/usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:43:11 +0100
Cedric Sodhi man...@gmx.net wrote:
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
Hi Cedric!
Why gentoo-user@ ? Choosing (and changing) reasonable defaults is up to
developer. You could add
Cedric Sodhi wrote:
You know... I appreciate all your helpful if you want to move portage
to /var you can do it by... 'suggestions', but, can you imagine the
following situation:
You push a change to a repository, on your way to work you realize that
there was an error in the commit so as soon
On 5 February 2011 16:15, Sergei Trofimovich sly...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:43:11 +0100
Cedric Sodhi man...@gmx.net wrote:
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
Hi Cedric!
Why gentoo-user@ ?
34 matches
Mail list logo
