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

2010-01-18 Thread Sebastian Pipping
On 01/16/10 19:52, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote: > 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 ma

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

2010-01-18 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
Alex Alexander wrote: > 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

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

2010-01-18 Thread Antoni Grzymala
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

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

2010-01-18 Thread Alex Alexander
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.

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

2010-01-18 Thread Peter Hjalmarsson
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 depend

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

2010-01-17 Thread Benedikt Böhm
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > 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. Maybe you should actua

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 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 > rea

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 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 singl

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 Michael Higgins
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.

[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 : > >> > layman cache is nfs distributable. Also it's good idea to have it close > >> > to PORTDIR. Thus I'd like to k

[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

[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 : >> > 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/ >>

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

2010-01-15 Thread Duncan
Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:45:49 -0500 as excerpted: > 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, wh