On 27/03/12 21:17, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 27/03/12 03:05 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>
>> I know this has come up before, but I don't really recall what the
>> specific objections were.
>
>> IMO the portage directory doesn't belong under /usr at all. I was
>> chatting with another developer who uses
>> /var/cache/portage/{tree,distfiles}, and I'm thinking about
>> switching my default setup to do this.
>
>> I realize that historically the portage tree has been installed
>> under /usr, but Can we consider changing this default for new
>> installations and providing instructions for users for how to get
>> the portage tree out of /usr? William
>
>
> IIRC, 'cache' can be a volatile storage area, that is, anything in it
> can be removed. One's system is b0rked (or at least, portage is) if
> /path/to/portage/profiles goes missing. I wholeheartedly agree that
> distfiles should be moved to /var , but I think the portage tree
> shouldn't be there..
>
> (at least, shouldn't be in /var/cache/ ; maybe /var/lib/ ? of course
> then we're colliding with the existing use of /var/lib/portage ...)Portage tree is a kind of database (I know, I know -- long shot), so maybe /var/db/portage for the tree and /var/cache/portage/distfiles (or drop portage from that path) for distfiles? -- Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
