Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Peter Volkov
The bug you mentioned [253725] is not about layman location, it's only
about keepdir line. Why don't we fix that and don't change defaults
another time? Such change does more harm for our users then good.

В Сбт, 16/01/2010 в 02:55 +0100, Sebastian Pipping пишет:
 On 01/16/10 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  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/.
 
 anybody objecting to /var/layman ?

layman cache is nfs distributable. Also it's good idea to have it close
to PORTDIR. Thus I'd like to keep it somewhere at /usr.

It's just impossible to choose perfect location that suits all needs and
it should stay user-configurable. So again, do not change this default
we no real need another time, please.

-- 
Peter.




Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Lars Wendler

 It's just impossible to choose perfect location that suits all needs and
 it should stay user-configurable. So again, do not change this default
 we no real need another time, please.

/usr/local is a bad choice for an ebuild-generated default. Like I said in bug 
#253725 I don't want ebuilds to mess with stuff in /usr/local. So either remove 
this default completely and let the user decide when setting up layman or move 
it around.
The best suggestions I've read here for now were either /var/layman or 
/usr/layman which I would have no problem with.

-- 
Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
Gentoo Staffer and bug-wrangler


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Fabian Groffen
On 15-01-2010 20:36:20 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
 I would like to get it right with the next switch.
 Would
 
   /var/lib/layman
 
 do well?  /var/cache/layman seems inadequate as it might not be
 regenerated [2] without losses (as upstream moves along).
 
 Would be great to hear a few opinions.  Thanks!

How about storing it in DISTDIR (like metadata.xml)?  Or storing it
somewhere in the rsync image?  That would maybe make sense when Portage
takes over layman's functionality in the future.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level



Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Lars Wendler polynomia...@gentoo.org wrote:
 It's just impossible to choose perfect location that suits all needs and
 it should stay user-configurable. So again, do not change this default
 we no real need another time, please.

 /usr/local is a bad choice for an ebuild-generated default. Like I said in bug
 #253725 I don't want ebuilds to mess with stuff in /usr/local. So either 
 remove
 this default completely and let the user decide when setting up layman or move
 it around.
 The best suggestions I've read here for now were either /var/layman or
 /usr/layman which I would have no problem with.


/me throws in /usr/share/layman

OTOH, I really think /usr/local/layman is OK as long as it's
runtime-generated and not added by the ebuild. That should satisfy bug
253725, and prevent another painful location move. It also makes sense
from the /usr/local is user/admin domain since only running the
layman tool will cause those directories to be created.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team



Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Ben de Groot
2010/1/16 Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org:
 On 01/16/10 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 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/.

 anybody objecting to /var/layman ?

I like that.

-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
__



Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Ben de Groot
2010/1/16 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org:
 layman cache is nfs distributable. Also it's good idea to have it close
 to PORTDIR. Thus I'd like to keep it somewhere at /usr.

I'd like both to be under /var/

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
__



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: ccc.eclass

2010-01-16 Thread Petteri Räty
On 01/12/2010 12:23 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
 On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 09:25:51PM +0100, Raaal Porcel wrote:
 scarabeus told me that the eclass can't be removed until two years since
 the deprecation date, so...

 Removal of the eclass on 2012/01/11
 
 Reasoning?  Prior to env saving we couldn't particularly punt 
 eclasses, but env saving is widely deployed now...
 
 ~harring

At least my argument at the time was that better to be safe when the
benefit from removing old eclasses isn't that much.

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 01/16/10 05:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Friday 15 January 2010 20:55:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
 On 01/16/10 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 the better idea
 though would be to split your stuff along the proper lines.

 cache files = /var/cache/layman/

 as i said: it's not a normal cache.
 
 you said but didnt explain why it's special.  these are merely caches of 
 external overlays and xml caches of overlay lists.

to me cache is something that speeds up operation but does not hold
content of real value.  with layman overlay checkouts that's a bit
different.  let's say a host overlay is taken offline: now the layman
copy is my only source.  Page [1] describes /var/cache as
Long term data which can be regenerated. so to me it's not a cache
because there might be data in there that we cannot regenerate.



sebastian


[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/filesystem/index.html



Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 01/16/10 12:17, Fabian Groffen wrote:
 How about storing it in DISTDIR (like metadata.xml)?  Or storing it
 somewhere in the rsync image?

I'm not really sure what you have in mind.
Can you make it a bit more visual for me?



Sebastian



Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 01/16/10 13:56, Ben de Groot wrote:
 anybody objecting to /var/layman ?
 
 I like that.

it seems that

  /var/layman

is the only location nobody has objected to, yet.  i plan to go with
that atm.  /var/lib/layman is my second favorite.

again, any objections?



sebastian



Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote:
 it seems that

  /var/layman

 is the only location nobody has objected to, yet.  i plan to go with
 that atm.  /var/lib/layman is my second favorite.

 again, any objections?


Why not make it a configuration option, with the default as
/var/layman (or whatever you want)? Then you can auto-generate it at
runtime easily, and everyone can use whatever they want. Just like
PORTDIR can be changed by anyone to anything they want.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team



[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Jörg Schaible
dev-ran...@mail.ru wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:57:38PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
 2010/1/16 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org:
  layman cache is nfs distributable. Also it's good idea to have it close
  to PORTDIR. Thus I'd like to keep it somewhere at /usr.
 
 I'd like both to be under /var/
 
 
 I _use_ both under /var/. In my config PORTDIR_OVERLAY=/var/repos/{many
 directories} and PORTDIR=/var/repos/gentoo. /usr/ is too crazy place
 for ebuilds. IMHO.

Same for me. I have PORTDIR also beneath /var ...

- Jörg





Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 01/16/10 19:31, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
 Why not make it a configuration option, with the default as
 /var/layman (or whatever you want)?

It is configurable already (see /etc/layman/layman.cfg)

  #---
  # Defines the directory where overlays should be installed

  storage   : /path/to/somewhere

We're discussing the default only.



Sebastian



[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Peter Hjalmarsson
lör 2010-01-16 klockan 19:16 +0100 skrev Sebastian Pipping:
 On 01/16/10 05:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  On Friday 15 January 2010 20:55:18 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
  On 01/16/10 02:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  the better idea
  though would be to split your stuff along the proper lines.
 
  cache files = /var/cache/layman/
 
  as i said: it's not a normal cache.
  
  you said but didnt explain why it's special.  these are merely caches of 
  external overlays and xml caches of overlay lists.
 
 to me cache is something that speeds up operation but does not hold
 content of real value.  with layman overlay checkouts that's a bit
 different.  let's say a host overlay is taken offline: now the layman
 copy is my only source.  Page [1] describes /var/cache as
 Long term data which can be regenerated. so to me it's not a cache
 because there might be data in there that we cannot regenerate.
 
 
That is for the overlays, yeah?
But hov about the cache_*.xml files?

I think what he meant was that should layman really only has one
directory? One for cache (downloaded/downloadable lists of overlays?
in /var/cache/layman/?), one for the make.conf and overlay.xml
(/etc/layman/?) and maybe one more directory for the overlays
(/var/lib/layman/?).

That make.conf/overlay.xml may not go as cache, nor do the overlays
themselves, but as I said, should really it all be in the same
directory?





[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Peter Hjalmarsson
lör 2010-01-16 klockan 19:31 +0100 skrev Jörg Schaible:
 dev-ran...@mail.ru wrote:
 
  On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:57:38PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
  2010/1/16 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org:
   layman cache is nfs distributable. Also it's good idea to have it close
   to PORTDIR. Thus I'd like to keep it somewhere at /usr.
  
  I'd like both to be under /var/
  
  
  I _use_ both under /var/. In my config PORTDIR_OVERLAY=/var/repos/{many
  directories} and PORTDIR=/var/repos/gentoo. /usr/ is too crazy place
  for ebuilds. IMHO.
 
 Same for me. I have PORTDIR also beneath /var ...
 
 - Jörg
 

Me too. I consider /usr/portage as one of those design flaws/thinkos
that are left behind since noone are ready to take the blame and flames
of all those who do not want to read elog-messages/announces and alike
and want to raise hell if somethings changes they are note prepared for.





Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Michael Higgins
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:57:39 +0100
Peter Hjalmarsson x...@rymdraket.net wrote:

 lör 2010-01-16 klockan 19:31 +0100 skrev Jörg Schaible:
  dev-ran...@mail.ru wrote:
  
   On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:57:38PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
   2010/1/16 Peter Volkov p...@gentoo.org:
layman cache is nfs distributable. Also it's good idea to have
it close to PORTDIR. Thus I'd like to keep it somewhere
at /usr.
   
   I'd like both to be under /var/
   
   
   I _use_ both under /var/. In my config
   PORTDIR_OVERLAY=/var/repos/{many directories} and
   PORTDIR=/var/repos/gentoo. /usr/ is too crazy place for
   ebuilds. IMHO.
  
  Same for me. I have PORTDIR also beneath /var ...
  
  - Jörg
  
 
 Me too. I consider /usr/portage as one of those design flaws/thinkos
 that are left behind since noone are ready to take the blame and
 flames of all those who do not want to read elog-messages/announces
 and alike and want to raise hell if somethings changes they are note
 prepared for.
 

Yes, PORTDIR default location under /usr was a totally stupid thing.
Please don't repeat it...

I have all portage under it's own partition, but /var/portage is
probably a more acceptable default, IMO.

-- 
 |\  /||   |  ~ ~  
 | \/ ||---|  `|` ?
 ||ichael  |   |iggins\^ /
 michael.higgins[at]evolone[dot]org



Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Antoni Grzymala
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


Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Antoni Grzymala
Ben de Groot dixit (2010-01-16, 00:41):

 2010/1/15 Dawid Węgliński c...@gentoo.org:
  On Friday 15 January 2010 20:44:43 Alex Legler wrote:
     /var/lib/layman
  
   do well?
 
  +1
 
  -1, /usr/local/layman?
 
 /usr/local/ is a location the system should avoid. Somewhere in /var/
 seems to be the logical place.

I always thought /usr/portage/local was the logical place. If not, I'd
also say, that /var/layman/whatever makes sense.

-- 
[a]



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 01/16/10 23:46, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
 One thing all you /usr naggers forget is, that /var cannot be shared
 read-only via nfs (or bind mounts in case of virtual servers).

Why is that?  Please tell more.



Sebastian



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Benedikt Böhm
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Higgins li...@evolone.org wrote:
 Yes, PORTDIR default location under /usr was a totally stupid thing.
 Please don't repeat it...

One thing all you /usr naggers forget is, that /var cannot be shared
read-only via nfs (or bind mounts in case of virtual servers). most
single-machine users probably don't care, but there is more out there
than just your workstations. so putting portage into /usr is perfectly
valid. The only thing that violates the FHS is that Large software
packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy.
A location beneath /usr/share probably would have been more compliant.

Anyway, since i'll keep my overlays in /usr/local regardless of the
outcome this thread has, i don't care :)

Bene



Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

2010-01-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 16 January 2010 17:46:08 Benedikt Böhm wrote:
 On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Higgins li...@evolone.org wrote:
  Yes, PORTDIR default location under /usr was a totally stupid thing.
  Please don't repeat it...
 
 One thing all you /usr naggers forget is, that /var cannot be shared
 read-only via nfs (or bind mounts in case of virtual servers). most
 single-machine users probably don't care, but there is more out there
 than just your workstations. so putting portage into /usr is perfectly
 valid.

and good thing there is a config file for you to change it to suite your weird 
needs.  /var is a better default than /usr here.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.