Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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.e. split out distfiles from the tree itself), /var/portage/overlays/layman or /var/portage/layman. I of course realize that change the structure of the whole portdir would had inresting complications, so take this comment just as serious as you like. But overlays really was an afterthought? I like this suggestion, it certainly makes the whole folder structure cleaner. If we're going to fix stuff, lets do it properly once and for all. Some compatibility code that checks and uses the old default locations while printing out warnings would help existing users with the transition without breaking current systems. Users with custom PORTDIR and friends could be notified through a news item. /var/portage/ /var/portage/tree /var/portage/layman /var/portage/overlays (non-layman managed, layman could also be in here) /var/portage/distfiles /var/portage/packages or %s/var/usr/ -- Alex Alexander :: wired Gentoo Developer www.linuxized.com pgpC37DfrQPPw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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 (the current PORTDIR), /var/portage/distfiles (i.e. split out distfiles from the tree itself), /var/portage/overlays/layman or /var/portage/layman. I of course realize that change the structure of the whole portdir would had inresting complications, so take this comment just as serious as you like. But overlays really was an afterthought? I like this suggestion, it certainly makes the whole folder structure cleaner. If we're going to fix stuff, lets do it properly once and for all. Some compatibility code that checks and uses the old default locations while printing out warnings would help existing users with the transition without breaking current systems. Users with custom PORTDIR and friends could be notified through a news item. /var/portage/ /var/portage/tree /var/portage/layman /var/portage/overlays (non-layman managed, layman could also be in here) /var/portage/distfiles /var/portage/packages or %s/var/usr/ Very much +1. -- [a] pgpqiAFGepd8h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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), /var/portage/distfiles (i.e. split out distfiles from the tree
itself), /var/portage/overlays/layman or /var/portage/layman.
I of course realize that change the structure of the whole portdir would
had inresting complications, so take this comment just as serious as you
like.
snip
/var/portage/
/var/portage/tree
/var/portage/layman
/var/portage/overlays (non-layman managed, layman could also be in here)
/var/portage/distfiles
/var/portage/packages
Not that I really care, but are these portage-only and we might need
/var/{paludis,pkgcore,...}/*? So what about /var/gentoo/*?
/haubi/
--
Michael Haubenwallner
Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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 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? yes, cache_*.xml are a bit different. Would you benefit from a move of these files to /var/chache/layman? Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org 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 actually read the FHS. You can of course share specific subdirectories of /var read-only and still be compliant, but /usr is specifically designed to be completely shareable read-only.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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] 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] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
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)
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.
