On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:24:20PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> 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 packages > write to /usr when they're doing internal updates. Obviously you need > a writable /usr to actually install package changes, but that > shouldn't be necessary just to sync the repository. > > I was asking around and it seems like most distros stick their > repositories in /var/lib. I can't imagine that too many would have > even considered sticking them in /usr.
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 argument for putting the repos in there. > > I am confused as to how we only now realized it was a FHS violation when it > > has been there for ~15 years. I was under the impression that /usr was the > > correct place for it. > > It has certainly been pointed out in the past. Nothing was changed > for the same reason that nothing will probably be changed this time - > people don't like change and the people who know better just slowly > patch around Gentoo's oddities. Somebody was just posting a manifesto > about deploying more experimental technologies, and here we can't move > a repository out of /usr. Another reason this couldn't be changed in the past was catalyst had a lot of hard coded references to /usr/portage. This has been fixe. in catalyst-3 and I understand that releng is now using catalyst-3. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
