On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:56 PM Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> >
>> > So, considering all the feedback from mailing list and IRC:
>> >
>> >/usr/portage ->
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:31:15 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Corentin “Nado” Pazdera wrote:
>>
>> > From the same source
>> > "No other requirements are made on the data format of the cache
>> > directories."
>> > And
On 29/07/18 21:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>
> Why not stick the repos in /var/repos and not /var/db/repos? If we're
> just making up paths, why not make up a shorter one? I don't think
> any other linux distros use /var/db...
>
*BSD I believe ..
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:56 PM Matt Turner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > So, considering all the feedback from mailing list and IRC:
> >
> >/usr/portage -> /var/db/repos/gentoo
> >/usr/portage/distfiles ->
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>>> Users must never need to modify files in /var/lib to configure a
>>> package's operation, and _the_specific_file_hierarchy_ used to
>>> store the data _must_not_be_
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 27 lipca 2018 10:32:17 CEST, Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>>
Users must never need to modify files in /var/lib to configure a
package's operation, and
[Proxying a message from Anders Thomson ]
Hi Ulrich,
As non-devs aren't allowed to post to gentoo-dev, I was hoping that you would
proxy this question/comment for me.
While on the subject of changing defaults, could we consider changing the
(default) location of the pkg db? Roughly everything in
W dniu pią, 27.07.2018 o godzinie 08∶06 -0700, użytkownik Brian Dolbec
napisał:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:31:15 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Corentin “Nado” Pazdera wrote:
> > > July 27, 2018 4:07 PM, "William Hubbs"
> > > wrote:
> > > > Section 5.5.2
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:31:15 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Corentin “Nado” Pazdera wrote:
>
> > July 27, 2018 4:07 PM, "William Hubbs"
> > wrote:
>
> >> Section 5.5.2 describes the directory structure of /var/cache.
> >> These paths are all optional [1].
> >>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Corentin “Nado” Pazdera wrote:
> July 27, 2018 4:07 PM, "William Hubbs" wrote:
>> Section 5.5.2 describes the directory structure of /var/cache.
>> These paths are all optional [1].
>>
>> /var/cache/fonts
>> /var/cache/man
>> /var/cache/www
>> /var/cache/
>>
>>
July 27, 2018 4:07 PM, "William Hubbs" wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:32:17AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> So, considering all the feedback from mailing list and IRC:
>>
>> /usr/portage -> /var/db/repos/gentoo
>> /usr/portage/distfiles -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/distfiles
>>
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:32:17AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> So, considering all the feedback from mailing list and IRC:
>
>/usr/portage -> /var/db/repos/gentoo
>/usr/portage/distfiles -> /var/cache{,/gentoo}/distfiles
>/usr/portage/packages ->
Dnia 27 lipca 2018 10:32:17 CEST, Ulrich Mueller napisał(a):
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>>> Users must never need to modify files in /var/lib to configure a
>>> package's operation, and _the_specific_file_hierarchy_ used to
>>> store the data _must_not_be_
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> Users must never need to modify files in /var/lib to configure a
>> package's operation, and _the_specific_file_hierarchy_ used to
>> store the data _must_not_be_ _exposed_ to regular users."
> One small note, while it is never
Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
Users must never
need to modify files in /var/lib to configure a package's operation,
and _the_specific_file_hierarchy_ used to store the data _must_not_be_
_exposed_ to regular users."
One small note, while it is never needed to modify, skel.ebuild would then be
a
On July 18, 2018 2:55:55 AM PDT, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>It was mentioned that all three directories (ebuild repository, binary
>packages, distfiles) have some characteristics of a cache. However, I
>think this is much more true for distfiles than for the other two,
>which cannot be easily
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:30 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:55 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> Also, there is that strange requirement that the
> >> file hierarchy must not be exposed to users. At least for the
> >>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:55 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Also, there is that strange requirement that the
>> file hierarchy must not be exposed to users. At least for the
>> make.profile link we rely on a well defined hierarchy, and certainly
>>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:55 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> "Pertains to one specific host" doesn't seem to apply to the Gentoo
> repository though.
Sure it does. The state of the package repository on a Gentoo host
doesn't affect any other host.
Sure, that state is synced from someplace that
On 07/18/2018 11:55 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I therefore suggest the following scheme:
The full scheme looks good to me
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
signature.asc
Description:
[Moving the thread back from -project to -dev.]
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Well, /var/lib/ is 3 right there. If 5 is no good then you
>> only have one left. We could just make it /var/lib/repos which seems
>>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, konsolebox wrote:
>
>> I don't mind calling ::gentoo as Gentoo's official ebuild repository,
>> but it also has been "a portage tree", and "the portage tree" by
>> default context. If you imply that people should
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, konsolebox wrote:
> I don't mind calling ::gentoo as Gentoo's official ebuild repository,
> but it also has been "a portage tree", and "the portage tree" by
> default context. If you imply that people should change convention to
> something more PMS friendly, be
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:49:37 -0700
> Raymond Jennings wrote:
>
>> In that case, I vote for /var/cache/portage, since that's literally
>> what purpose it serves. Namely, the cache of the gentoo infra's
>> current copy of teh portage tree.
>>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:12 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:13:57PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>> W dniu czw, 12.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶51 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
>> napisał:
>> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:47 PM Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So, "portage" should
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:35:41 -0700
Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Brian Dolbec
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:49:37 -0700
> > Raymond Jennings wrote:
> >
> > > In that case, I vote for /var/cache/portage, since that's
> > > literally what purpose it
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:49:37 -0700
> Raymond Jennings wrote:
>
> > In that case, I vote for /var/cache/portage, since that's literally
> > what purpose it serves. Namely, the cache of the gentoo infra's
> > current copy of teh portage
> I guess /var/portage is not a terrible choice.
Well, I double that.
I've already use the following structure:
|- /var/portage/
| |- repos
| | |- gentoo
| | |- reponame1
| | |- reponame2
| |- distfiles
| | |- ...
| | |- ...
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:13:57PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 12.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶51 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:47 PM Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > >
> > > So, "portage" should not be a directory name in the new default path.
> > >
> >
W dniu czw, 12.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶51 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
napisał:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:47 PM Brian Dolbec wrote:
> >
> > So, "portage" should not be a directory name in the new default path.
> >
>
> Well, in my examples I proposed it as that is the software that
> created
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:47 PM Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> So, "portage" should not be a directory name in the new default path.
>
Well, in my examples I proposed it as that is the software that
created the path, but then again in the spirit of PMS portage isn't
the only PM.
So:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:49:37 -0700
Raymond Jennings wrote:
> In that case, I vote for /var/cache/portage, since that's literally
> what purpose it serves. Namely, the cache of the gentoo infra's
> current copy of teh portage tree.
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM Alec Warner
> wrote:
> >
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:34 PM konsolebox wrote:
>
> I have /var/lib/gentoo/portage defined in repos.conf/gentoo.conf.
>
Regardless of the base directory location, I might suggest a path
dedicated to repositories, of which the main gentoo repo is just an
initial one, and overlays could be
I have /var/lib/gentoo/portage defined in repos.conf/gentoo.conf.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 2:50 AM Raymond Jennings wrote:
> In that case, I vote for /var/cache/portage, since that's literally
> what purpose it serves. Namely, the cache of the gentoo infra's
> current copy of teh portage tree.
>
In that case, I vote for /var/cache/portage, since that's literally
what purpose it serves. Namely, the cache of the gentoo infra's
current copy of teh portage tree.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM Alec Warner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>
>> Just for
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Raymond Jennings
wrote:
> Just for the record, but would putting a setting inside
> /etc/portage/make.conf be the appropriate way to handle this?
>
>
The settings already exist (and have existed for 10 years.) This bikeshed
discussion is literally trying to
Just for the record, but would putting a setting inside
/etc/portage/make.conf be the appropriate way to handle this?
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:16 PM William Hubbs wrote:
>
> That is the other part of this debate, some are saying /var/lib, and
> others are saying /var/db.
>
> It turns out that /var/db is much more common than I thought it was
> (it exists in all *bsd variants at least), so that could be an
Am Mittwoch, 11. Juli 2018, 18:19:39 CEST schrieb Alec Warner:
> [...]
>
> +1 to this. The challenge (in moving it) is that its been "/usr/portage"
> for a long time so many tools
> may have hard coded this location; as opposed to querying portage for where
> the tree is, e.g.:
>
>
On Thursday, 12 July 2018 07:21:20 CEST Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Richard Yao wrote:
> > This does not answer my question. Is it really a FHS violation? The
> > contents of /usr changes when doing updates using the system package
> > manager. When not doing updates, it
[Please fix your mailer. Your message has a broken "References" header.]
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Richard Yao wrote:
> This does not answer my question. Is it really a FHS violation? The
> contents of /usr changes when doing updates using the system package
> manager. When not doing updates,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:24:20PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Richard Yao wrote:
> >
> > Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage
> > tree is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true of
> > everything else
W dniu śro, 11.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶26 -0400, użytkownik Richard Yao
napisał:
> > On Jul 11, 2018, at 6:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > W dniu śro, 11.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶11 -0400, użytkownik Richard Yao
> > napisał:
> > > > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > > >
>
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 6:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage tree
>> is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true of
>> everything else in
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 6:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> W dniu śro, 11.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶11 -0400, użytkownik Richard Yao
> napisał:
On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Yao wrote:
On my system, /usr/portage
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Richard Yao wrote:
>
> Is it a violation of the FHS? /usr is for readonly data and the portage tree
> is generally readonly, except when being updated. The same is true of
> everything else in /usr.
>
It is application metadata. It belongs in /var. No other
W dniu śro, 11.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶11 -0400, użytkownik Richard Yao
napisał:
> > On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Yao wrote:
> > >
> > > On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to
> > > have on,h
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to
>> have on,h top level directories be separate mountpoints.
>
> It makes sense to follow FHS. Sure, I
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:25:20PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM Richard Yao wrote:
>
> On my system, /usr/portage is a separate mountpoint. There is no need to have
> on,h top level directories be separate mountpoints.
It makes sense to follow FHS. Sure, I can work around poor designs by
sticking mount points all over the
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:25:20PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> > On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> >> On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M.
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:36 AM Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>
>> I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout
>> for awhile.
>>
>
> I don't see why we would ever stop supporting it, at least in general.
>
On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:36 AM Raymond Jennings
> wrote:
> >
> > I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout
> > for awhile.
> >
>
> I don't see why we would ever stop supporting it, at least in general.
>
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:36 AM Raymond Jennings wrote:
>
> I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout
> for awhile.
>
I don't see why we would ever stop supporting it, at least in general.
Maybe if some day somebody had a solution for a read-only /usr with
signature
As long as an announcement is made in advance (perhaps as a NEWS item)
and portage itself is prepared to do an in-place migration if
necessary, I think things will be fine.
I do think it would be a wise idea to "grandfather" the current layout
for awhile.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:24 AM Gordon
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> This is a mess, many systems are setup with portage already on a
> seperate partition for reasons. What advantage does it provide to move
> the tree now after all these years? I have seen nothing more then lets
> do this cause I like the
On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>>> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> I'd mostly argue any such change should
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> >>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
> >>>
> >> Yes,
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Agreed, /var/db I guess is a Gentoo invention of some kind?
> No, it exists in FreeBSD too.
As was pointed out to me, it exists in all three BSD variants [1,2,3].
Its purpose there is for
On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>>>
>> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying.
>>
>> My
On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>>
> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying.
>
> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the
On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>
Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying.
My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage
tarballs.
When sys-apps/portage
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:53:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Though I do prefer /var/lib or /var/cache over /var/db, simply
>> because /var/lib is actually in FHS.
> Agreed, /var/db I guess is a Gentoo invention of some kind?
No, it exists in
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:34 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems
>
++
If a user wants to migrate it is pretty easy to do. Update the
setting and do an mv, or don't do an mv in which case it will just
regenerate. I think
On 07/09/2018 11:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> Though I do prefer /var/lib or /var/cache over /var/db, simply because
>> /var/lib is actually in FHS.
> Agreed, /var/db I guess is a Gentoo invention of some kind?
well, for a gentoo-based PMS that might not be a bad thing.. but I'd say
cache is
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:53:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:13 PM Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
> > napisał:
> > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > >
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 4:13 PM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
> napisał:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations
> > > have been
W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶11 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
napisał:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations
> > have been changed to:
> >
> > DISTDIR="/var/cache/portage/distfiles"
>
On 07/09/2018 01:07 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 07/09/2018 01:00 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests
using it
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:43:31PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The defaults locations
> have been changed to:
>
> DISTDIR="/var/cache/portage/distfiles"
> PKGDIR="/var/cache/portage/packages"
> RPMDIR="/var/cache/portage/rpm"
>
> Plus
On 07/09/2018 01:00 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests
>>> using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 08:36:33PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests
> > using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the issue with
> > making that global), though for
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:21:36 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> /usr/portage by default?
>
> If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>
I don't recall a tracker bug ever being
W dniu pon, 09.07.2018 o godzinie 12∶21 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs
napisał:
> All,
>
> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> /usr/portage by default?
>
> If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
sys-apps/portage-mgorny has already done that. The
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'd also consider /var/cache here as well. FHS specifically suggests
> using it for web caches and the like (let's set aside the issue with
> making that global), though for the most part it is more metadata
> caching. A key principle is that it
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:11 PM Johannes Huber wrote:
>
> Am 09.07.2018 um 20:05 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>
> >>> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> >>>
Am 09.07.2018 um 20:05 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>>> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
>>> /usr/portage by default?
>>
>>> If not, what is the status of us
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> > is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> > /usr/portage by default?
>
> > If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
>
> Please remind me, what was
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:26 PM Alec Warner wrote:
>
> The former is probably 3 times easier than the latter.
> - Get testers to move their tree and report issues[0].
> - Change the stage3 defaults to be the new location.
> - Explicitly do nothing else.
>
> New installs will get the new
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> /usr/portage by default?
> If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
Please remind me, what was the plan for the new location?
Somewhere under /var/db or /var/lib,
On Monday, 9 July 2018 19:26:54 CEST Alec Warner wrote:
> [0] A number of people already point PORTDIR at some other location and
> appear to operate without major issues.
I do have it in /var/cache/portage/gentoo (alongside /var/cache/portage/
{distfiles,packages,local} and that works quite
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:21 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
> /usr/portage by default?
I suspect the answer is 'whenever' but that mostly depends on
implementation and what you want to accomplish.
Do you want:
- All hosts
All,
is there a tracker for when the portage tree can be moved out of
/usr/portage by default?
If not, what is the status of us being able to do this?
Thanks,
William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
85 matches
Mail list logo