rfc: location of portage tree

03-27-2012, 07:05 PM

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

03-27-2012, 07:13 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 03/27/2012 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
>

But, that'd violate the spirit of usrmove!

Seriously, I don't have a strong opinion on it either way. It should
be placed in /var as a way to kind of hint that the files there
shouldn't be edited.

- - Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk9yEU4ACgkQVxOqA9G7/aCdsgD9Hz1KgBVosuGa3RM9uwzzSoou
CnmD3nXj4iBT6cDBY2oA/iThMycgi+Y0lBhr+N7TMWQJwvqgTjzpxg/wQ7wVDF49
=NN8U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

03-27-2012, 07:17 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

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 ...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk9yEmYACgkQAJxUfCtlWe0FNAEAyD6zMS/R7P0kltN6J84kAOkM
5LHcznZRWnn6WFyy4CIA+wXNkzDQ5Pim/hqxHylSILlmUUkb+96KvkjX/mmO03eU
=VVCn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

03-27-2012, 07:25 PM

On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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
>

I think I'd rather something closer to paludis's notion, don't assume
its "portage", assume its a repository instead.

/var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
/var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
/var/cache/distfiles/*
/var/cache/packages/*

Or something along those lines. ( And definitely with the default
locations for distfiles and pkg's outside the repository tree instead
of inside it )

--
Kent

perl -e* "print substr( "edrgmaM* SPA NOcomil.ic@tfrken", $_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"

03-27-2012, 07:29 PM

>
> /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
> /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
> /var/cache/distfiles/*
> /var/cache/packages/*
>

Actually, now I think of it, repositories /might/ be suitable for
being under /db/
the repository does sort of function like a database, the tools we use
to access it treats it like one. .

And we already have /var/db/pkg , why not /var/db/repositories beside it?

/var/db/pkg
/var/db/repositories/gentoo/*
/var/db/repositories/perl-experimental/*
/var/db/repositories/sunrise/*
/var/cache/distfiles
/var/db/binpkg/

--
Kent

perl -e* "print substr( "edrgmaM* SPA NOcomil.ic@tfrken", $_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"

03-27-2012, 07:34 PM

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...

03-27-2012, 07:40 PM

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
> /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
> /var/cache/distfiles/*
> /var/cache/packages/*

These sub directories are all portage related, so it is best to put them
under /var/cache/portage.
Look in /var/cache on your system; most of the directories in there (at
least on my system) are named for the program that uses them.

William

03-27-2012, 07:46 PM

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:29:50AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> >
> > /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
> > /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
> > /var/cache/distfiles/*
> > /var/cache/packages/*
> >
>
>
> Actually, now I think of it, repositories /might/ be suitable for
> being under /db/
> the repository does sort of function like a database, the tools we use
> to access it treats it like one. .
>
> And we already have /var/db/pkg , why not /var/db/repositories beside it?

I disagree with this, because the repositories can be recovered by doing
an emerge --sync, but if you rm -rf /var/db/pkg you hose your system.

William

03-27-2012, 07:47 PM

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
>> /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
>> /var/cache/distfiles/*
>> /var/cache/packages/*
>
> These sub directories are all portage related, so it is best to put them
> *under /var/cache/portage.
> *Look in /var/cache on your system; most of the directories in there (at
> *least on my system) are named for the program that uses them.

The gentoo-x86 ebuild tree is not necessarily portage related.
However I think we should paint the bike shed '/srv/tree'

-A

>
> William
>

03-27-2012, 07:59 PM

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:47:10PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:25:58AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> >> On 28 March 2012 08:05, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> /var/cache/repositories/gentoo/*
> >> /var/cache/repositories/perl-experimental/*
> >> /var/cache/distfiles/*
> >> /var/cache/packages/*
> >
> > These sub directories are all portage related, so it is best to put them
> > *under /var/cache/portage.
> > *Look in /var/cache on your system; most of the directories in there (at
> > *least on my system) are named for the program that uses them.
>
> The gentoo-x86 ebuild tree is not necessarily portage related.
> However I think we should paint the bike shed '/srv/tree'
heh ;-)

What I was wanting to discuss mainly was that /usr/portage isn't right;
I think we need to move that out of the /usr directory.

I'm not sure what the new default should be, nor how the default should
be decided. Maybe we just let Zac pick one?

William