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).
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 ch
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 client
I am new to Gentoo and just watching this discussion.
So why does stage three put portage in
/usr
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
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"
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 natur
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
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;
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/lo
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 plann
(this is a rather obvious fix...)
eselect news has a new notice, advising of the pending change of the
presumed location of the layman directory from /usr/local/portage/layman
to /var/lib/layman. It offers three ways to deal with this location
change. I chose alternative A. (actually moving the di
12 matches
Mail list logo
