Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On 01/18/10 01:38, Sebastian Pipping wrote: On 01/17/10 21:31, Thilo Bangert wrote: /var/layman i dislike due to this sentence in the FHS: Applications must generally not add directories to the top level of /var. Such directories should only be added if they have some system-wide implication[...] [..] current ranking through my eyes: 1) /var/layman con: adds folder to /var, maybe should not 2) /var/db/laymancon: you tell me 3) /var/lib/layman con: not really /var/lib-style data let me put the thoughts we collected so far to a decision. looking at /var shows, that not many application really dared to have a dedicated folder in /var directly: # find /var -maxdepth 1 -type d /var /var/tmp /var/lost+found /var/www /var/cache /var/spool /var/run /var/lock /var/db /var/gdm-- gnome-base/gdm /var/lib /var/empty -- net-misc/openssh /var/log /var/state after re-considering the requirements for /var/lib/layman the data in there can be host-specific (and therefore is not host-independent in general). i think it fits _well enough_ and to my impression it has less potential of turning out wrong than non-FHS /var/db: so /var/lib/layman is the new default. expect related commits to layman soon. sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Monday 18 January 2010 19:05:23 Sebastian Pipping wrote: /var/empty -- net-misc/openssh this isnt exactly openssh specific. a few other packages use it as well for their users because it's guaranteed to be empty. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
2010/1/15 Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org: By default layman currently stores overlays into /usr/local/portage/layman (was /usr/portage/local/layman before that). As of bug 253725 [1] that's not without problems. I would like to get it right with the next switch. I realise this is a lost cause, but... Repositories are databases, so /var/db/ is your friend. -- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
Am Samstag 16 Januar 2010 19:26:04 schrieb 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 +1 -- 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)
On 01/17/10 10:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: I realise this is a lost cause, but... Repositories are databases, so /var/db/ is your friend. Right, that's a way you can see it. Does anyone _strongly_ prefer /var/db/layman over /var/layman ? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com said: I realise this is a lost cause, but... Repositories are databases, so /var/db/ is your friend. i like it. Closely followed by /var/lib/layman... wikipedia says in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard /var/lib/ State information. Persistent data modified by programs as they run, e.g., databases, packaging system metadata, etc. /var/layman i dislike due to this sentence in the FHS: Applications must generally not add directories to the top level of /var. Such directories should only be added if they have some system-wide implication[...] IMHO layman does not qualify. i am not religious on these things, however. kind regards Thilo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On 01/17/10 21:31, Thilo Bangert wrote: /var/layman i dislike due to this sentence in the FHS: Applications must generally not add directories to the top level of /var. Such directories should only be added if they have some system-wide implication[...] 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? current ranking through my eyes: 1) /var/layman con: adds folder to /var, maybe should not 2) /var/db/laymancon: you tell me 3) /var/lib/layman con: not really /var/lib-style data sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Sunday 17 January 2010 15:31:26 Thilo Bangert wrote: Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com said: I realise this is a lost cause, but... Repositories are databases, so /var/db/ is your friend. i like it. Closely followed by /var/lib/layman... wikipedia says in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard /var/lib/ State information. Persistent data modified by programs as they run, e.g., databases, packaging system metadata, etc. /var/layman i dislike due to this sentence in the FHS: Applications must generally not add directories to the top level of /var. Such directories should only be added if they have some system-wide implication[...] while i think portage/layman should have their tree split up better, i dont think this particular argument applies considering portage (and any overlays it uses) absolutely has system-wide implications ... -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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 depends on your definition of database. At least some parts of the tree (like the files/ dirs) at not very database-like. current ranking through my eyes: 1) /var/layman con: adds folder to /var, maybe should not 2) /var/db/laymancon: you tell me 3) /var/lib/layman con: not really /var/lib-style data I still think that it should be close to the portage tree, therefore in /usr. But if you go for /var then take /var/layman. Ulrich
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.
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)
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)
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)
2010/1/16 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)
2010/1/16 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] [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] [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 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 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
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
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] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:36:20 +0100, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: Hello! By default layman currently stores overlays into /usr/local/portage/layman (was /usr/portage/local/layman before that). As of bug 253725 [1] that's not without problems. I don't think it should be changed again. It is quite annoying to have to hunt down where the $next layman location is. Why can't layman create /usr/local/portage/layman at runtime if it doesn't exist and then you can remove the keepdir line from the ebuild?? -Jeremy 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! Sebastian [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/253725 [2] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/filesystem/index.html
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:36:20 +0100, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote: Would /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -- Alex Legler | Gentoo Security / Ruby a...@gentoo.org | a...@jabber.ccc.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Friday 15 January 2010 20:44:43 Alex Legler wrote: /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -1, /usr/local/layman? -- Cheers Dawid Węgliński
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 15-01-2010 21:25, Dawid Węgliński wrote: On Friday 15 January 2010 20:44:43 Alex Legler wrote: /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -1, /usr/local/layman? Wouldn't that break the rule that /usr/local is reserved for users / admins? - From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. If /var/cache/layman doesn't work, what about /var/spool/layman instead? - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAktQ+zsACgkQcAWygvVEyAJISgCcDCKsH7jIN07MVInTVkQftS6C GV8An2qWhr3Kg67FNopOBZAe266VcDVj =/6ng -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Saturday 16 January 2010 00:33:15 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: On 15-01-2010 21:25, Dawid Węgliński wrote: On Friday 15 January 2010 20:44:43 Alex Legler wrote: /var/lib/layman do well? +1 -1, /usr/local/layman? Wouldn't that break the rule that /usr/local is reserved for users / admins? From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. If /var/cache/layman doesn't work, what about /var/spool/layman instead? Or just leave it up to user with elog message... Or ask him first to set variable in /etc/make.conf? -- Cheers Dawid Węgliński
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote: - From the alternatives, /var/lib/layman doesn't sound right. The FHS (which we don't always obey, but in cases like this it's useful as a guideline) says about /var/lib: This hierarchy holds state information pertaining to an application or the system. State information is data that programs modify while they run, and that pertains to one specific host. IMHO that doesn't fit layman's usage case. If /var/cache/layman doesn't work, It doesn't, since the data cannot be locally (i.e. off-line) regenerated. what about /var/spool/layman instead? Looks like it's the best location available in /var. But by analogy, layman should store things in the same hierarchy where the portage tree is, and that is under /usr. What was wrong with the original location /usr/portage/local? Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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/ -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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. if people are concerned with pining a version, then they should be extracting to their own overlay since a mere sync is going to drop it (just like /usr/portage/). if you want to call it state data, then it'd be /var/lib/layman/ ... -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
