Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On 2 Mar 2010, at 15:51, Peter Humphrey wrote: ... I'm happy with the new default arrangement: mainstream packages under /usr/portage; layman overlays under /var/lib/layman; and my own variations under /usr/local/portage. Nice clean boundaries. Not that I really care, but I find this layout somewhat illogical. It makes perfect sense to me that /usr/local/portage should be the local version of /usr/portage But the different Unix directories are supposed to have different general purposes. I don't remember the details of that off the top of my head, but putting something in /var ought to indicate that it is somewhat different in nature /or purpose to something in /usr. The main Portage tree a layman overlay are not so fundamentally different, IMO. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:10:21 +, Stroller wrote: But the different Unix directories are supposed to have different general purposes. I don't remember the details of that off the top of my head, but putting something in /var ought to indicate that it is somewhat different in nature /or purpose to something in /usr. The main Portage tree a layman overlay are not so fundamentally different, IMO. That's right, they should both be in /var. -- Neil Bothwick There's too much blood in my caffeine system. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:21:23 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:10:21 +, Stroller wrote: But the different Unix directories are supposed to have different general purposes. I don't remember the details of that off the top of my head, but putting something in /var ought to indicate that it is somewhat different in nature /or purpose to something in /usr. The main Portage tree a layman overlay are not so fundamentally different, IMO. That's right, they should both be in /var. I concur. /usr has a long tradition is Unix of often being mounted read-only (think thin clients that mount it over NFS). My set up is: portage:/var/portage/ my overlay: /var/portage/local/alan/ layman: /var/portage/local/layman/* As portage is hard-coded to not fiddle with $PORTDIR/local/, this works well for me and every ebuild on the system is under one mount point. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
Alan McKinnon writes: On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:21:23 Neil Bothwick wrote: That's right, they should both be in /var. I concur. /usr has a long tradition is Unix of often being mounted read-only (think thin clients that mount it over NFS). Any idea why it's different with Gentoo in the first place? /usr also always sounded wrong to me for the portage tree. And for other things. Shouldn't /usr/src go somewhere into /var? And shouldn't /usr/share/config stuff be in /etc? My set up is: portage: /var/portage/ my overlay: /var/portage/local/alan/ layman: /var/portage/local/layman/* As portage is hard-coded to not fiddle with $PORTDIR/local/, this works well for me and every ebuild on the system is under one mount point. Where do you have the distfiles? I now have it like this: /var/portage:distfiles, pkgdir and tree /var/portage/tree: portage tree (on extra partition) /var/portage/layman: layman /var/portage/local: my ebuilds Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
I am new to Gentoo and just watching this discussion. So why does stage three put portage in /usr
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 18:33:52 Alex Schuster wrote: Alan McKinnon writes: On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:21:23 Neil Bothwick wrote: That's right, they should both be in /var. I concur. /usr has a long tradition is Unix of often being mounted read-only (think thin clients that mount it over NFS). Any idea why it's different with Gentoo in the first place? /usr also always sounded wrong to me for the portage tree. And for other things. Shouldn't /usr/src go somewhere into /var? And shouldn't /usr/share/config stuff be in /etc? /usr/src/ is the traditional place for kernel header files. They are intended to be static, change seldom, and definitely not something that users can change. Normally, root would update them when needed, and stuff can then build against them. /usr/share/config/ is an upstream thing and if you follow FHS then /etc/ is a better place. But Gentoo follows upstream as much as possible so this one gets left as-is. NB: Gentoo only follows FHS when it suits Gentoo devs to do it :-) The reasoning offered is usually that Gentoo is a source distro and therefore has little needs of FHS, which does tend towards compatibility between binary distros My set up is: portage:/var/portage/ my overlay: /var/portage/local/alan/ layman: /var/portage/local/layman/* As portage is hard-coded to not fiddle with $PORTDIR/local/, this works well for me and every ebuild on the system is under one mount point. Where do you have the distfiles? I now have it like this: /var/distfiles/ /var/packages/ /var/rpm/ I do it this way as I am confident portage will leave /var/portage/local/ alone, I have no confidence it will do the same for the above three. Plus, those dirs can get big, and I keep the portage volume small and tight for performance reasons -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 18:43:55 stosss wrote: I am new to Gentoo and just watching this discussion. So why does stage three put portage in /usr I'm not sure this will mean much to you, but the REAL reasons are that 1. It is a historical artifact that no-one thus far saw fit to change, 2. FreeBSD does it that way. Yes, #2 is for real. Read the ancient histories of where Gentoo originally came from as written by drobbins to find out why -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On 3 Mar 2010, at 16:33, Alex Schuster wrote: Alan McKinnon writes: On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:21:23 Neil Bothwick wrote: That's right, they should both be in /var. I concur. /usr has a long tradition is Unix of often being mounted read-only (think thin clients that mount it over NFS). Any idea why it's different with Gentoo in the first place? /usr also always sounded wrong to me for the portage tree. It probably just goes back to a snap descision by Daniel Robbins a decade (or nearly) ago. At one time he wasn't intending to distribute in the same way - Portage evolved from a script that he wrote to help him build a binary distro he was planning, so perhaps /usr/portage wasn't intended to be installed on users' systems (only on his own machine). Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On Monday 01 March 2010 18:30:24 Tanstaafl wrote: Well... my local overlays (that I set up a long time ago) are there... and portage obviously 'touches' those, so... should I move them as well? I wouldn't. I'm happy with the new default arrangement: mainstream packages under /usr/portage; layman overlays under /var/lib/layman; and my own variations under /usr/local/portage. Nice clean boundaries. -- Rgds Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On 2010-03-01 1:08 PM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote: So layman users choosing alternative A. now may want to add a step; after moving the directory, put a soft link in the /usr/local/portage pointing to the new location; i.e. cd /usr/local/portage; ln -s /var/lib/layman layman Thanks, I was planning on doing the same thing and glad to be validated... Question: the news itme also mentioned the reason as something like 'layman violates the general rule that nothing in portage should touch anything in /usr/local'... Well... my local overlays (that I set up a long time ago) are there... and portage obviously 'touches' those, so... should I move them as well? -- Charles
Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory relocation
On Monday 01 March 2010 20:30:24 Tanstaafl wrote: On 2010-03-01 1:08 PM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote: So layman users choosing alternative A. now may want to add a step; after moving the directory, put a soft link in the /usr/local/portage pointing to the new location; i.e. cd /usr/local/portage; ln -s /var/lib/layman layman Thanks, I was planning on doing the same thing and glad to be validated... Question: the news itme also mentioned the reason as something like 'layman violates the general rule that nothing in portage should touch anything in /usr/local'... Well... my local overlays (that I set up a long time ago) are there... and portage obviously 'touches' those, so... should I move them as well? As it turns out, portage is hard-coded to skip over @PORT_DIR/local/ for the simple reason that your personal local overlay goes there. I have $PORT_DIR here redefined to be /var/portage/ and layman goes /var/portage/local/layman/, mostly because I think FHS is a good standard and it says /usr/ should be able to be mounted read-only. In short, if you put an explicit entry in make.conf for the layman overlays, you will be fine as you are no longer relying on a default that can change. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
