Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Saturday 16 January 2010 17:46:08 Benedikt Böhm wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Higgins 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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Michael Higgins 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)
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] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
Ben de Groot dixit (2010-01-16, 00:41): > 2010/1/15 Dawid Węgliński : > > 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/ makes sense. -- [a]
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:57:39 +0100
Peter Hjalmarsson 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 :
> > >> > 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
[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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 :
> >> > 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.
[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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?
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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)
dev-ran...@mail.ru wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:57:38PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> 2010/1/16 Peter Volkov :
>> > 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)
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Sebastian Pipping 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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)
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)
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] Last rites: ccc.eclass
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)
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:57:38PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> 2010/1/16 Peter Volkov :
> > 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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
2010/1/16 Peter Volkov : > 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] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
2010/1/16 Sebastian Pipping : > 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)
El sáb, 16-01-2010 a las 17:16 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan escribió: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Lars Wendler 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. > From my (layman user) point of view I am still using /usr/portage/local for it because I prefer to have all "portage trees" in the same place. Maybe another option could be to have a /usr/portage/overlays directory used for "unofficial" overlays, then, layman configuration stuff (like its make.conf and so) could be present under /etc/layman, while overlays (sunrise, gnome...) could be installed under /usr/portage/overlays signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Lars Wendler 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)
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)
> 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)
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.
