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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-12 Thread Kent Fredric
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:35:57 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > ...and the git hook would've rejected them because they aren't signed > by a Gentoo developer. Fair enough. I suspect in line with the other comments, it would be optimal if said commit hook mentioned something along the lines of:

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

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] _unmerge_dirs: revisit parents of removed symlinks (bug 640058)

2018-07-12 Thread Zac Medico
When removal of a symlink is triggered by removal of the directory that it points to, revisit the parent directories of the symlink. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/640058 --- pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 23 +-- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-12 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu wto, 10.07.2018 o godzinie 09∶38 -0400, użytkownik kuzetsa napisał: > > The only issue I see is that of slight complications on handling the > > different addresses for author and commit, that's all that comes to > > mind. > > > > > > Mart > > > > I think authorship is a good point /

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Requiring gentoo.git committers to use their @gentoo.org address

2018-07-12 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu czw, 12.07.2018 o godzinie 15∶52 +1200, użytkownik Kent Fredric napisał: > On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 10:40:22 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We currently don't enforce any particular standard for e-mail addresses > > for developers committing to gentoo.git. FWICS, the majority

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/promise

2018-07-12 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (12 Jul 2018) # Abandoned upstream, no reverse dependencies. Collides with # dev-python/promises (that has revdeps). # Removal in 30 days. Bug #651156. dev-python/promise -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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-portage-dev] [PATCH] dbapi: fix repoman implicit IUSE (bug 660982)

2018-07-12 Thread Brian Dolbec
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:59:03 -0700 Zac Medico wrote: > Account for repoman modifications of the portdbapi self.settings > reference, and treat all flags as valid for the empty profile > because it does not have any implicit IUSE settings. > > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/660982 > --- >

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.: > >

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] dbapi: fix repoman implicit IUSE (bug 660982)

2018-07-12 Thread Zac Medico
Account for repoman modifications of the portdbapi self.settings reference, and treat all flags as valid for the empty profile because it does not have any implicit IUSE settings. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/660982 --- pym/_emerge/Package.py| 5 - pym/portage/dbapi/__init__.py | 16

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