Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-29 Thread Matt Turner
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 ->

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-29 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-29 Thread M. J. Everitt
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-29 Thread Rich Freeman
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 ->

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-29 Thread Matt Turner
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_

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-29 Thread Matt Turner
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-29 Thread Ulrich Mueller
[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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-29 Thread Michał Górny
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-27 Thread Brian Dolbec
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]. > >> >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-27 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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/ >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-27 Thread Corentin “Nado” Pazdera
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 >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-27 Thread William Hubbs
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 ->

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-27 Thread Michał Górny
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_

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-27 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-19 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-18 Thread Christopher Head
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-18 Thread Rich Freeman
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 > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-18 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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 >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-18 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-18 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
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:

[gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree (was: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29)

2018-07-18 Thread Ulrich Mueller
[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 >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-13 Thread konsolebox
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-13 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-13 Thread konsolebox
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. >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-13 Thread konsolebox
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Brian Dolbec
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Raymond Jennings
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov
> 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 | | |- ... | | |- ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread William Hubbs
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. > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Michał Górny
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Rich Freeman
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:

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Brian Dolbec
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: > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread konsolebox
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. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Raymond Jennings
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Alec Warner
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Raymond Jennings
Just for the record, but would putting a setting inside /etc/portage/make.conf be the appropriate way to handle this?

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Nils Freydank
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.: > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-12 Thread Dennis Schridde
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Ulrich Mueller
[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,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread William Hubbs
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Michał Górny
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: > > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Richard Yao
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Richard Yao
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Michał Górny
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Richard Yao
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Richard Yao
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread William Hubbs
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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Richard Yao
> 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. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Richard Yao
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Alec Warner
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. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Raymond Jennings
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Gordon Pettey
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-11 Thread Jory A. Pratt
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:

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-10 Thread M. J. Everitt
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-10 Thread William Hubbs
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,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-10 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Zac Medico
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread M. J. Everitt
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Zac Medico
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread William Hubbs
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: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Michał Górny
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" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Zac Medico
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread William Hubbs
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Zac Medico
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread William Hubbs
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Brian Dolbec
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Michał Górny
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
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 > >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Johannes Huber
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread 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 being able to do this? > > Please remind me, what was

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Rich Freeman
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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,

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Dennis Schridde
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread Alec Warner
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

[gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

2018-07-09 Thread William Hubbs
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