I'd like to apologize for my last mail, it looks like I've credited you
with the wrong arguments. Latter argument, that the developers have
bigger issues at hand, has been made by another contributor, not the one
to whom I replied.
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:56:53AM +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:31:49 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
>
> > 1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new directory,
> > the old tree would rot in /usr
>
> And people would hit problems be
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:49:30AM +0200, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > He already did. He was told to ask here. :-)
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351463 (WONTFIX)
>
> Ah, I see. So, gentoo-dev@ is the way to go :]
>
> > I can understand that we don't want to automatically change eve
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:45:23PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
>
> /usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be the
> appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical back then.
It was consistent back
You know... I appreciate all your helpful "if you want to move portage
to /var you can do it by..." 'suggestions', but, can you imagine the
following situation:
You push a change to a repository, on your way to work you realize that
there was an error in the commit so as soon as you get to work yo
Replying to the three before messages which basically made the point
that one can change the location manyually.
I'm aware of that and as I've pointed out I consider it irrelevant to
the point that I'm making (with which you appear to agree at least
principally), that is, that it should not be the
There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
/var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
with the portage tree.
It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and heavy
changes, which is
7 matches
Mail list logo
