mån 2010-01-18 klockan 06:27 +0100 skrev Ulrich Mueller: > >>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > > > isn't a package tree somehow having "system-wide implications"? > > i'm not really sure about /var/db - doesn't seem to be in FHS. > > is a package tree a database? > > This depends on your definition of "database". At least some parts of > the tree (like the files/ dirs) at not very database-like. > > > current ranking through my eyes: > > > 1) /var/layman con: adds folder to /var, maybe should not > > 2) /var/db/layman con: you tell me > > 3) /var/lib/layman con: not really /var/lib-style data > > I still think that it should be close to the portage tree, therefore > in /usr. But if you go for /var then take /var/layman. > > Ulrich > >
I sometimes think the main problem is the tree itself. Portage really should had a directory of its own, but maybe with anoher structure, like /var/portage, /var/portage/tree (the current PORTDIR), /var/portage/distfiles (i.e. split out distfiles from the tree itself), /var/portage/overlays/layman or /var/portage/layman. I of course realize that change the structure of the whole portdir would had inresting complications, so take this comment just as serious as you like. But overlays really was an afterthought?
