Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr
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.
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr
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 saying > the current default is right, it's not, but you are over-simplifying the > work involved in making a change. I disagree. You are overcomplifying it instead. The proposed patch would involve exactly: 1.) Change the default (the value that is used if no explicit value is given) 2.) etc-update make.conf to explicitly specify the old location as the desired value. Period. Patches have always required reviewing by the user through etc-update. Your attempts to argue that patching portage with that simple change would introduce problems of unpreceeded magnitude are pharisaic. It's the same though significantly simpler as other updates to whatever package you like. Your argument that the developers should not be bothered with minor issues such as this one because they have bigger issues is the trillionth logical fallacy in this thread. I'm honestly tired of it and I will not counter argue this because the wrongness of your reasoning should be trivial to spot with at least a minimum of thought. Hint: We (users & developers) have to first reach the decision that it *should* be changed. We haven't even reach that point and are crawling through a mud of ignorance instead. > > Actually, the way to make the change is not to change the default, yet, > but to change the default make.conf for new installs, and the > accompanying documentation. That way existing systems are unaffected, > which is how it should be with a change of default.
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr
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 > > installed Gentoo from /usr/portage to /var/portage but why not try to > > get new installs set up properly? Then perhaps an explanation on how > > existing installs could be migrated for those wanting to do so? > > > > It would seem that all that's required is: > > 1) add an explicit PORTDIR=/usr/portage to /etc/make.conf for existing > > installs (unless PORTDIR is already specified, of course); > > 2) change the default. > > > > Is it really more complicated than that? > > I guess sending proposal with patches to gentoo-dev@ would speed things a bit. > Sending proposals with patches are likely to be equally ignored and opposed as it is already the fact on this list. So far, those who propose *not* to change it have quite exactly matched my expectations: a) Faulty reasoning, short sighted at times, or at least failed to draw a connection between their alleged "argument" and the issue in question. b) Irrational path of thought. Let me sum up the few s.c. counter arguments we have obtained thus far. I omit the arguments pro the change since they should be most obvious by now. Irrelevant arguments * It is tradition, hence it should be kept * You can always change it Wrong reasoning: * If it would be changed today, we would break the systems of those who did not specify => Nonsense in two regards: 1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new directory, the old tree would rot in /usr 2. Since when are changes the very reason for NOT to change something. That's ridiculous. Ever heard of etc-update, post-install-hooks etc? The update to portage could simply relocate the tree. * If it would be changed today, applications that unconditionally rely on the portage tree to be there will break => Those applications do already break today if one changes the location manually. Which means they are broken already and portage should not be held responsible for catering to a broken application If I missed anything that had at least attempted to appeal to logic, please feel free to add it. Given the reluctance and ignorance we are faced with on gentoo-user@ I have little hope that gentoo-dev@ will be any better, considering that it have been the responsible devs who have proven ignorant and illogical in the past.
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr
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 then, I agree. > And if something is not broken, don't change it. You do not know what old > tool/setting/whatever might suffocate. As I've pointed out portage in /usr *is* broken. If a tool/setting/whatever might suffocate it 1) does not comply to the current state of gentoo 2) will equally suffocate if you change the location trough make.conf As had been correctly pointed out, the only thing that is really required is chaning the *default* portdir(s) > PORTDIR is not a mere workaround. If you are sure that there is no old crap > lingering around that might expect portdir as /usr/portage, use it. > Workarround/"Change to make it work", that's hair splitting. Again, we are distracted from the actuall issue which is a (noadays) nonsensical default. If I find out that something relies on a fixed portdir, I will report a bug on that. I will not subordinate the correctness of an Issue A to the incorrectnes of an Issue B. > Besides /usr/src/ contains linux and other sources. Wrong too? It is f* > tradition. portage does not contain temporary data or database stuff - that > crap is in /var/db, /var/tmp/portage, /var/lib. So the worst stuff is > somewhere > already. You wanna go there? Take my hand, let's go! But consider it a excursion, nothing related to the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi linux sources do not belong in /usr/ either. However, they are historically based there and this tradition is more deeply rooted than a mere wrong location in gentoo's portage design. There are more flaws like that, none of which justifies that portage should do the same mistakes. Portage does exactly contain temporary data. It contains a database in the most exact meaning of the word. Your argument is absurd.
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr
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 send out an email to everyone "Please do not pull until today evening when I have reverted that". And when you're back home and check the status you see that about everyone who could possibly have read you mail pulled from the repo. A parabel for the technically affine...
Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr
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 the default. A wrong default is wrong. What kind of an aittude is it to acccept a flawed default and just make it right for one self. I for my part have of course changed it but I want to straighten it out for the whole distribution, for those who happen not to have read about how to change it, for those who can't be arsed to fix every single bit that gentoo makes wrong by its own. And what bothers me most is that, as you said, it hasnt been changed in a decade, out of pure ignorance, given that it has been brought up several times already. 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 email, don't make any more suggestions how one can change this for oneself. It's irrelevant to the issue.
[gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr
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 usually accounted for my choosing an appropriate filesystem and configuring it accordingly. /usr is expected to be a static directory with mostly read access and few to no changes on a running system. This issue seems to have been ignored for a long time. When I asked about it, I met two types of responses: a) Those who thought about it and agreed, that portage should be moved b) Those who replied "deal with it" If you can think of good counter arguement which *logically* supports that portage should by default reside in /usr (including the distfiles and everything else variable) please tell us. If not, please refrain from logically irrelevant statements such as the above, "you can always do " or similar ones. If you have further arguments to support my point, I'd also welcome them to the discussion, I expect 90% or more of the real arguments to support my point. I've also heard rumours that such an outcome has already been there in the past, yet, gentoo developers ignored it and kept portage in /usr for unknown and most likely unlogical reasons. I believe these rumours. If again, the logical conclusion will be that portage should be moved but it is not acted upon but logic is ignored, please ask yourself what kind of distribution we are. "It is a community built around a distribution which is driven by more than 300 developers and thousands of users. " regards, MD
