Alex Alexander dixit (2010-01-18, 11:07): > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:05:58AM +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: > > 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? > > I like this suggestion, it certainly makes the whole folder structure > cleaner. If we're going to fix stuff, lets do it properly once and for > all. > > Some compatibility code that checks and uses the old default locations > while printing out warnings would help existing users with the > transition without breaking current systems. Users with custom PORTDIR > and friends could be notified through a news item. > > /var/portage/ > /var/portage/tree > /var/portage/layman > /var/portage/overlays (non-layman managed, layman could also be in here) > /var/portage/distfiles > /var/portage/packages > > or %s/var/usr/
Very much +1. -- [a]
pgpqiAFGepd8h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
