[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 depends on your

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.e.

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 (the

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 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

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 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

[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 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/

[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. cache

[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 p...@gentoo.org: layman cache is nfs distributable. Also it's good idea to have it close to PORTDIR. Thus I'd like to

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 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

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 Benedikt Böhm
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

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 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

[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, what about