On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 17:33 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 12/19/2012 02:01 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:56:44 +0100
> >> Diego Elio Pettenņ wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just mv /usr/portage /var/portage ? FFS no. Among other th
Am 19.12.2012 17:25, schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
On 19/12/2012 17:19, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
FHS 2.3: "Applications must generally not add directories to the top
level of
/var. Such directories should only be added __if they have some
system-wide
implication__, and in consultation with the FH
On Wednesday 19 December 2012 18:56:10 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2012 02:49:08 George Shapovalov wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 December 2012 12:59:40 Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> > > But to keep ebuilds for ex. gcc around for over 5 years is just insane.
> >
> > I would argue, that stuff
On Thursday 13 December 2012 13:59:40 Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> Well there are exceptions to every rule, it is the ideal to get a
> discussion to make a better decision as to when a revision of a package
> should be removed and no longer supported. Well many slots can be useful
> for many packages, th
On Friday 14 December 2012 02:49:08 George Shapovalov wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2012 12:59:40 Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> > But to keep ebuilds for ex. gcc around for over 5 years is just insane.
>
> I would argue, that stuff like gcc and some other system packages should be
> kept forewer. One
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 09:13:28 AM Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > >> Olav Vitters wrote:
> > >> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 02:01 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:56:44 +0100
>> Diego Elio Pettenņ wrote:
>>
>>> Just mv /usr/portage /var/portage ? FFS no. Among other things, as
>>> many said before, we should really take distfiles out
On 12/19/2012 02:01 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:56:44 +0100
> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>
>> Just mv /usr/portage /var/portage ? FFS no. Among other things, as
>> many said before, we should really take distfiles out of the tree
>> itself, and packages the same. And I don't
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:56:44 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Just mv /usr/portage /var/portage ? FFS no. Among other things, as
> many said before, we should really take distfiles out of the tree
> itself, and packages the same. And I don't want /var/packages
> or /var/distfiles at all.
If we
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:13:28 -0800
Greg KH wrote:
> No, not at all, please see the web page that describes, in detail, the
> problems that has been going on for quite some time now, with the /usr
> and / partitions and packages.
> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:21:36AM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Mon, December 17, 2012 22:31, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:40PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >> Olav Vitters wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:29:26AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> >> As I said in an
On Wednesday 19 December 2012 15:52:28 Duncan wrote:
> >> There is a _reason_ why stuff is added to /var/lib instead of having
> >>
> >> /var/postgres /var/mysql /var/foobar /var/wtf /var/wth /var/imtired
> >>
> >> ...
> >
> > I don't understand how this is related to the discussion. None of the
On 19/12/2012 17:19, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> FHS 2.3: "Applications must generally not add directories to the top level of
> /var. Such directories should only be added __if they have some system-wide
> implication__, and in consultation with the FHS mailing list."
Since you like adding emphas
Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2012, 14:43:56 schrieb Ulrich Mueller:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > On 19/12/2012 13:44, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> >> I would suggest /var/portage ...
> >
> > Seriously, mine is going to be a huge veto here with as much power I
> > can put.
>
On 19/12/2012 16:54, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> And YES Diego, it won't be /var/portage or /var/repositories, we heard
> you.
Thanks, it's appreciated :)
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 23:16 -0800, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:19:20 +0100
> Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>
> > Currently we put portage into /usr/portage and all related stuff is to
> > be in the subfolders there (distfiles, binpkg).
> >
> > I've always myself override these defaults
Ulrich Mueller posted on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:43:56 +0100 as excerpted:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/2012 13:44, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>>> I would suggest /var/portage ...
>
>> Seriously, mine is going to be a huge veto here with as much power I
>> can put
On 19/12/2012 15:14, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> So in terms of the above, would that mean /var/lib is a better fit?
> or would that mean /var/cache and it is up to the user to add their
> own backup of /var/cache/portage ?
I would say it's up to the user. When I do that kind of setup I actually
use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/12/12 08:56 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>
> That's why my suggestion is to use /var/cache: it makes it clear
> that there is no definitive reason to back it up (as Justin said
> there is an issue with distfiles you can't re-download but that
On 19/12/2012 14:43, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Why? The portage tree is of central importance for Gentoo, so IMHO a
> second-level directory would be acceptable for it. Besides, it
> currently is in /usr/portage, so it wouldn't be new but would only
> move from /usr to /var.
I'm irked enough by /usr
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 19/12/2012 13:44, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
>> I would suggest /var/portage ...
> Seriously, mine is going to be a huge veto here with as much power I
> can put.
Why? The portage tree is of central importance for Gentoo, so IMHO a
second-le
On 19/12/2012 14:03, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> But, anyway, I think, /var/repositories/gentoo is very very nice idea ;)
I'm going to repeat myself until this is shot down entirely.
We're not going to create a new top-level directory in /var. Get over
it. Stop.
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — F
But, anyway, I think, /var/repositories/gentoo is very very nice idea ;)
19.12.2012 03:03, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina пишет:
> On 12/18/2012 02:49 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> On 12/18/2012 01:38 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2012 02:19 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Currently we put p
On 19/12/2012 13:44, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> Why not? From a FHS pov it seems ok...
>
> I would suggest /var/portage ...
Seriously, mine is going to be a huge veto here with as much power I can
put.
There is a _reason_ why stuff is added to /var/lib instead of having
/var/postgres
/var/mysql
Am Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012, 22:33:06 schrieb Diego Elio Pettenò:
> No /var/gentoo. No /var/repositories.
>
> /var/db/gentoo, /var/db/repositories, /var/cache/portage ... as long as Zac
> is fine with one whatever, but let's not invent any new top-level.
Why not? From a FHS pov it seems ok...
On 19 December 2012 09:03, Michał Górny wrote:
> Of course, it all would be
> easier if we used git.
Please lets not hijack yet another thread with the git migration.
--
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
On 12/18/2012 11:58 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Zac Medico posted on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:58:42 -0800 as excerpted:
>
>> It's important to clarify that, because /etc/portage/sets (aka GLEP 21
>> User Sets) has already been supported in stable portage since 2.1.11.9
>> [1].
>
> I didn't know that. Last I
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:56:56 +0100
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:40:06 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > > People aren't bothering. It's not because of any fundamental
> > > problem -- it's because the process is obscure and potentially a
> > > waste of time.
> >
> > I agree w
28 matches
Mail list logo
