Am 03.10.2013 11:00, schrieb Yuri K. Shatroff:
> I apologize but I always thought that it's Linux that derives from
> AT&T SysV (1983), while FreeBSD derives from ... BSD (1978). How come
> then Linux uses SysV init and BSD does not? ;)
no, no and no.
On 02.10.2013 16:28, Alan McKinnon wrote:
[ ... ]
You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to
a long-standing bug.
Incidentally, do you know why the tree is in /usr? Because FreeBSD ports
puts it there. Why did they do that? Because FreeBSD is not Linux; it is
derived
On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:48:59 +0200, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
> >On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still
> >> in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the
> >> portage directory lives, but the ha
Alan McKinnon wrote:
>On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
>>> installation.
>>
>> Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use
>> defaul
On 2013-10-02 2:24 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Ok, thanks much guys... guess I'll go with Alans layout as it makes the
most sense to me:
/var/portage
/var/distfiles
/var/packages
Actually, I think I like:
/var/portage/tree
/var/portage/distfiles
/var/portage/packages
better... :)
On 2013-10-02 11:31 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
Because they have no place in the portage tree. The portage tree contains
thousands of small files, but remains largely the same size. On the other
hand $DISTDIR and $PKGDIR contain files that are not controlled by
portage and grow continually without
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:47:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I'm still waiting to hear why Neil doesn't move packages and distfiles
> > there... sounded like he had a good reason...
> He's English, and old(-ish)
>
> My money says he forgot.
Misremembered actually.
In fact, I replied when I saw
On 02/10/2013 14:53, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-10-02 8:28 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Yes, I looks like I was wrong all along.
>
> I thought I was wrong once, but then discovered that I was mistaken... ;)
>
>> You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to
>> a long-sta
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:23:07 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > /var makes sense to me, it's where I put the tree (but not packages or
> > distfiles).
>
> Why not these?
Because they have no place in the portage tree. The portage tree contains
thousands of small files, but remains largely the same si
On 2013-10-02 8:28 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Yes, I looks like I was wrong all along.
I thought I was wrong once, but then discovered that I was mistaken... ;)
You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to
a long-standing bug.
I'm still waiting to hear why Neil doe
On 02/10/2013 14:12, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:04:16 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
installation.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> While I'm not sure why it matters to you,
>
> Just curious.
>
>> it is because I ha
On 02/10/2013 14:04, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-10-01 2:48 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
>>> installation.
>
>> Why?
>
> While I'm not sure why it matters to you, it is beca
On 2013-10-01 7:41 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
/var makes sense to me, it's where I put the tree (but not packages or
distfiles).
Why not these?
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:04:16 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
> >> installation.
>
> > Why?
>
> While I'm not sure why it matters to you,
Just curious.
> it is because I have a policy
> that I never change the defaults for an
On 2013-10-01 2:48 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
installation.
Why?
While I'm not sure why it matters to you, it is because I have a policy
that I never change the defaults
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 15:51:01 -0700, Greg Turner wrote:
> I do think I vaguely recall that discussion about /var too though...
> frankly, /var seems more sensible ... but maybe that's a can of worms
> I should not be opening in this thread :)
I think it was one of those discussion where every could
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
>>> installation.
>>
>> Why? If ever there was a distro for people tha
On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
>> installation.
>
> Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use
> defaults, Gentoo is it.
>
>> Someon
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch
> installation.
Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use
defaults, Gentoo is it.
> Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone?
On 2013-10-01 10:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 10/01/2013 08:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official, is
there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it?
Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:11:56 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> So I split them up and rigged things so each category of thing is in
> it's own distinct directory tree. Like I said earlier, they are just
> paths and you can put them anywhere you like. You too can put yours
> anywhere it makes sense to
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:52:47 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs
> >> for things like this...
>
> > It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is.
> > That's all, nothing
On 01/10/2013 15:52, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for
>>> things like this...
>
>> It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is. That's
>> all, nothing more.
>
> Ok, than
On 10/01/2013 08:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official, is
> there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it?
>
> Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly
> tied to portage 2.2? The reason I ask
On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for
things like this...
It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is. That's
all, nothing more.
Ok, thanks... but (call me anal, because I am) I still think th
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 08:35:16 -0400
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >> Alan wrote:
> >>> Charles wrote:
> But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so,
> then I don't think I want t
On 01/10/2013 14:35, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
Charles wrote:
> But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I
> don't think I want to move it - I generally
On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> Charles wrote:
But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I
don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless
there is a very good re
28 matches
Mail list logo
