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

2010-01-18 Thread Sebastian Pipping
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

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

2010-01-18 Thread Mike Frysinger
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)

2010-01-17 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
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

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

2010-01-17 Thread Lars Wendler
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

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

2010-01-17 Thread Sebastian Pipping
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)

2010-01-17 Thread Thilo Bangert
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/

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

2010-01-17 Thread Sebastian Pipping
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

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

2010-01-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

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

2010-01-17 Thread 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 depends on your definition of database. At least some parts of the tree (like the

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

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

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

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

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

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] [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.

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,

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

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

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

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

2010-01-15 Thread Sebastian Pipping
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 would like to get it right with the next switch. Would /var/lib/layman do well? /var/cache/layman seems

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

2010-01-15 Thread Jeremy Olexa
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

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

2010-01-15 Thread Alex Legler
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)

2010-01-15 Thread Dawid Węgliński
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)

2010-01-15 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-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

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

2010-01-15 Thread Dawid Węgliński
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

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

2010-01-15 Thread Ben de Groot
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

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

2010-01-15 Thread Ulrich Mueller
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

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

2010-01-15 Thread Sebastian Pipping
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)

2010-01-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
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

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

2010-01-15 Thread Mike Frysinger
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