Mike Frysinger dixit (2010-01-15, 20:45): > On Friday 15 January 2010 20:24:38 Sebastian Pipping wrote: > > On 01/16/10 00:33, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > > > - From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. If > > > /var/cache/layman doesn't work, what about /var/spool/layman instead? > > > > Okay, how about > > > > /var/spool/layman > > > > then? Any objections? > > /var/spool/ is a terrible idea -- these are not jobs being queued waiting to > be processed by a daemon and then removed. > > if you want to keep all of layman's stuff together, then about your only > option is to create your own tree at like /var/layman/. the better idea > though would be to split your stuff along the proper lines. > > cache files = /var/cache/layman/ > config files = /etc/layman/
Layman-added trees are not much different altogether from the main
portage tree. Putting it in a location *totally* unrelated to the main
portage tree is, to put it mildly, *strange*. We still haven't heard in
this thread what was wrong with the original (${PORTDIR}/local/)
location. Despite all the propositions in the thread it still feels like
a best place to me. I'm sure the change to /usr/local/portage has been
discussed elsewhere previously, but maybe a pointer to some older
discussion would be handy.
I'm all for going back to the original location (based on ${PORTDIR}).
Best,
--
[a]
pgp5UItcwFkYo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
