Moving the portage tree to /var

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Moving the portage tree to /var

Peter Humphrey-3
Afternoon all,

As a step towards exporting my portage tree over NFS I decided to move
/usr/portage to /var/portage, but leave /usr/portage/packages and
/usr/portage/distfiles where they are.

This is how it looks now:

$ grep DIR= /etc/portage/make.conf
DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
PORTDIR="/var/portage"

$ ls -l /etc/portage/make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 Oct  7 15:28 /etc/portage/make.profile ->
../../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0

$ mount | grep portage
/dev/mapper/vg7-portage on /var/portage type ext4 (rw,relatime)
/dev/mapper/vg7-packages on /usr/portage/packages type ext4 (rw,relatime)
/dev/mapper/vg7-distfiles on /usr/portage/distfiles type ext4 (rw,relatime)

This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:

$ eix-update
Reading Portage settings ..
Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
[0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
     Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished            
[1] "" /usr/portage (cache: parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign)
     Reading category 162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
[...]

Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see what. I
used to have layman and a couple of overlays on this box, but they've now
gone. Well, maybe I left something lying around.

I've grepped for likely-looking strings, read the docs and prodded google, but
I can't see what I'm missing. Would someone please help me out? I'm sure I'm
just being dense.

--
Regards
Peter


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Bruce Schultz


On 8 October 2014 1:09:54 AM AEST, Peter Humphrey <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Afternoon all,
>
>As a step towards exporting my portage tree over NFS I decided to move
>/usr/portage to /var/portage, but leave /usr/portage/packages and
>/usr/portage/distfiles where they are.
>
>This is how it looks now:
>
>$ grep DIR= /etc/portage/make.conf
>DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
>PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
>PORTDIR="/var/portage"
>
>$ ls -l /etc/portage/make.profile
>lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 Oct  7 15:28 /etc/portage/make.profile ->
>../../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0
>
>$ mount | grep portage
>/dev/mapper/vg7-portage on /var/portage type ext4 (rw,relatime)
>/dev/mapper/vg7-packages on /usr/portage/packages type ext4
>(rw,relatime)
>/dev/mapper/vg7-distfiles on /usr/portage/distfiles type ext4
>(rw,relatime)
>
>This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:
>
>$ eix-update
>Reading Portage settings ..
>Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
>[0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
>     Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished            
>[1] "" /usr/portage (cache:
>parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign)
>     Reading category 162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
>[...]
>
>Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see
>what. I
>used to have layman and a couple of overlays on this box, but they've
>now
>gone. Well, maybe I left something lying around.
>
>I've grepped for likely-looking strings, read the docs and prodded
>google, but
>I can't see what I'm missing. Would someone please help me out? I'm
>sure I'm
>just being dense.

Check /etc/portage/repos.conf

Bruce
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Neil Bothwick
In reply to this post by Peter Humphrey-3
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:09:54 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:
>
> $ eix-update
> Reading Portage settings ..
> Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
> [0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished            
> [1] "" /usr/portage (cache:
> parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign) Reading category
> parse|162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
> [...]
>
> Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see
> what.
I've just installed a new system with the tree in /var from the outset
and no /usr/portage at all, and eix behaves like this (I hadn't noticed
until you pointed it out) so it may be the /usr/portage path is hard
coded.

This doesn't cause any problems but now you have pointed it out it is
going to annoy me.


--
Neil Bothwick

A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.

signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Peter Humphrey-3
In reply to this post by Bruce Schultz
On Wednesday 08 October 2014 01:29:59 Bruce Schultz wrote:

> Check /etc/portage/repos.conf

That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.

--
Regards
Peter


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Tomas Mozes
In reply to this post by Peter Humphrey-3
On 2014-10-07 17:09, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> Afternoon all,
>
> As a step towards exporting my portage tree over NFS I decided to move
> /usr/portage to /var/portage, but leave /usr/portage/packages and
> /usr/portage/distfiles where they are.
>
> This is how it looks now:
>
> $ grep DIR= /etc/portage/make.conf
> DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
> PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
> PORTDIR="/var/portage"
>
> $ ls -l /etc/portage/make.profile
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 Oct  7 15:28 /etc/portage/make.profile ->
> ../../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0
>
> $ mount | grep portage
> /dev/mapper/vg7-portage on /var/portage type ext4 (rw,relatime)
> /dev/mapper/vg7-packages on /usr/portage/packages type ext4
> (rw,relatime)
> /dev/mapper/vg7-distfiles on /usr/portage/distfiles type ext4
> (rw,relatime)
>
> This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:
>
> $ eix-update
> Reading Portage settings ..
> Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
> [0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished
> [1] "" /usr/portage (cache:
> parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign)
>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
> [...]
>
> Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see
> what. I
> used to have layman and a couple of overlays on this box, but they've
> now
> gone. Well, maybe I left something lying around.
>
> I've grepped for likely-looking strings, read the docs and prodded
> google, but
> I can't see what I'm missing. Would someone please help me out? I'm
> sure I'm
> just being dense.

Try adjusting /etc/portage/repos.conf/gentoo.conf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Tomas Mozes
On 2014-10-07 17:57, Tomas Mozes wrote:

> On 2014-10-07 17:09, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> Afternoon all,
>>
>> As a step towards exporting my portage tree over NFS I decided to move
>> /usr/portage to /var/portage, but leave /usr/portage/packages and
>> /usr/portage/distfiles where they are.
>>
>> This is how it looks now:
>>
>> $ grep DIR= /etc/portage/make.conf
>> DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
>> PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
>> PORTDIR="/var/portage"
>>
>> $ ls -l /etc/portage/make.profile
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 Oct  7 15:28 /etc/portage/make.profile ->
>> ../../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0
>>
>> $ mount | grep portage
>> /dev/mapper/vg7-portage on /var/portage type ext4 (rw,relatime)
>> /dev/mapper/vg7-packages on /usr/portage/packages type ext4
>> (rw,relatime)
>> /dev/mapper/vg7-distfiles on /usr/portage/distfiles type ext4
>> (rw,relatime)
>>
>> This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:
>>
>> $ eix-update
>> Reading Portage settings ..
>> Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
>> [0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
>>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished
>> [1] "" /usr/portage (cache:
>> parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign)
>>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
>> [...]
>>
>> Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see
>> what. I
>> used to have layman and a couple of overlays on this box, but they've
>> now
>> gone. Well, maybe I left something lying around.
>>
>> I've grepped for likely-looking strings, read the docs and prodded
>> google, but
>> I can't see what I'm missing. Would someone please help me out? I'm
>> sure I'm
>> just being dense.
>
> Try adjusting /etc/portage/repos.conf/gentoo.conf

Sorry, didn't see the reply before.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Neil Bothwick
In reply to this post by Peter Humphrey-3
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:39:11 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > Check /etc/portage/repos.conf  
>
> That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.

Indeed. That directory was either empty or absent on all my systems.
copying repos.conf from /usr/share/portage and modifying the path got rid
of the message.


--
Neil Bothwick

Walk softly and carry a fully charged phazer.

signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Mick-10
On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 17:08:11 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:39:11 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > Check /etc/portage/repos.conf
> >
> > That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.
>
> Indeed. That directory was either empty or absent on all my systems.
> copying repos.conf from /usr/share/portage and modifying the path got rid
> of the message.


Shouldn't this file be populated by settings in /etc/portage/make.conf?

I can't recall editing manually and it seems to have bespoke settings that I
have in make.conf ...

--
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Mike Gilbert-2
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Mick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 17:08:11 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:39:11 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> > > Check /etc/portage/repos.conf
>> >
>> > That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.
>>
>> Indeed. That directory was either empty or absent on all my systems.
>> copying repos.conf from /usr/share/portage and modifying the path got rid
>> of the message.
>
>
> Shouldn't this file be populated by settings in /etc/portage/make.conf?
>
> I can't recall editing manually and it seems to have bespoke settings that I
> have in make.conf ...
>

Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
configure it.

Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
which parse make.conf directly.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Mick-10
On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Mick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 17:08:11 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:39:11 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> > > Check /etc/portage/repos.conf
> >> >
> >> > That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.
> >>
> >> Indeed. That directory was either empty or absent on all my systems.
> >> copying repos.conf from /usr/share/portage and modifying the path got
> >> rid of the message.
> >
> > Shouldn't this file be populated by settings in /etc/portage/make.conf?
> >
> > I can't recall editing manually and it seems to have bespoke settings
> > that I have in make.conf ...
>
> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
> configure it.
>
> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
> which parse make.conf directly.

<Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article
somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
--
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

tanstaafl-2
In reply to this post by Mike Gilbert-2
On 10/7/2014 5:56 PM, Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
> configure it.

Ok, did I miss a news item on this?

Is this discussed in detail somewhere?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

tanstaafl-2
In reply to this post by Mick-10
On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>> configure it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>> which parse make.conf directly.

> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article
> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?

So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.

I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Michael Orlitzky
On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>>> configure it.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>>> which parse make.conf directly.
>
>> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article
>> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
>
> So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
>
> I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
> guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
>

I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
Eventually, portage will probably begin to warn you if you have PORTDIR
set in your make.conf, and will tell you to move your settings to
repos.conf (with a pointer to the man page or wiki). That'll stick
around for another while. Then, you'll get a news item telling you that
PORTDIR is going away in a month or so.

Finally, your shit will stop working and that's your final warning =)

More realistically, the portage upgrade might die or ewarn loudly if you
still have PORTDIR set.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Mick-10
On Saturday 25 Oct 2014 17:45:05 Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
> >>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
> >>> configure it.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
> >>> which parse make.conf directly.
> >>
> >> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news
> >> article somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
> >
> > So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
> >
> > I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
> > guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
>
> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
> Eventually, portage will probably begin to warn you if you have PORTDIR
> set in your make.conf, and will tell you to move your settings to
> repos.conf (with a pointer to the man page or wiki). That'll stick
> around for another while. Then, you'll get a news item telling you that
> PORTDIR is going away in a month or so.
>
> Finally, your shit will stop working and that's your final warning =)
>
> More realistically, the portage upgrade might die or ewarn loudly if you
> still have PORTDIR set.
I haven't touched this on my systems yet.  As a matter of fact, I totally
forgot about it!

(Old age creeps up on you)  :-p

--
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc (484 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Michael Orlitzky
On 10/25/2014 01:49 PM, Mick wrote:
>
> I haven't touched this on my systems yet.  As a matter of fact, I totally
> forgot about it!
>
> (Old age creeps up on you)  :-p
>

I haven't bothered with it either, I really like being able to do:

  PORTDIR="$REPOS/gentoo-x86" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="" emerge -1 whatever


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Peter Humphrey-3
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On Saturday 25 October 2014 12:45:05 Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
> >>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
> >>> configure it.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
> >>> which parse make.conf directly.
> >>
> >> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news
> >> article somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
> >
> > So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
> >
> > I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
> > guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
>
> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
> Eventually, portage will probably begin to warn you if you have PORTDIR
> set in your make.conf, and will tell you to move your settings to
> repos.conf (with a pointer to the man page or wiki). That'll stick
> around for another while. Then, you'll get a news item telling you that
> PORTDIR is going away in a month or so.
>
> Finally, your shit will stop working and that's your final warning =)
>
> More realistically, the portage upgrade might die or ewarn loudly if you
> still have PORTDIR set.

Never mind PORTDIR; it would have been considerate to give a hint that the new
repos.conf directory had been introduced, and what it portended.

--
Rgds
Peter


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Martin Vaeth-2
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
Michael Orlitzky <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I haven't bothered with it either, I really like being able to do:
>
>   PORTDIR="$REPOS/gentoo-x86" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="" emerge -1 whatever

Why don't you do emerge -1 whatever::gentoo
Moreover, you can use PORTAGE_REPOSITORIES for temporary overrides
of repos.conf


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Michael Orlitzky
On 10/26/2014 10:02 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't bothered with it either, I really like being able to do:
>>
>>   PORTDIR="$REPOS/gentoo-x86" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="" emerge -1 whatever
>
> Why don't you do emerge -1 whatever::gentoo

When adding a new ebuild, I want the entire ::gentoo repo to disappear
so that I get warned if I forgot to do something in ::gentoo-x86.


> Moreover, you can use PORTAGE_REPOSITORIES for temporary overrides
> of repos.conf

Well, it's not (documented?) in stable portage, so there's that =)

If I normally have ::gentoo, ::gentoo-x86, and 3 or 4 overlays, how easy
is it to wipe out everything except ::gentoo-x86 using PORTAGE_REPOSITORIES?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

tanstaafl-2
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On 10/25/2014 12:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>>>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>>>> configure it.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>>>> which parse make.conf directly.
>>
>>> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article
>>> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
>>
>> So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
>>
>> I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
>> guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...

> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.

Ok, but that doesn't answer the main question...

Mike Gilbert - apparently a gentoo dev - said that ideally we should
remove the PORTDIR setting.

This begs three questions...

1. Is this correct?

2. If so, is there a definitive guide/news item/post somewhere that
explains the details (how and why mainly)?

3. If not, why did Mike say this?

thanks...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Alan McKinnon-2
On 27/10/2014 17:45, Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 10/25/2014 12:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>>>>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>>>>> configure it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>>>>> which parse make.conf directly.
>>>
>>>> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article
>>>> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
>>>
>>> So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
>>>
>>> I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
>>> guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
>
>> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
>
> Ok, but that doesn't answer the main question...
>
> Mike Gilbert - apparently a gentoo dev - said that ideally we should
> remove the PORTDIR setting.
>
> This begs three questions...
>
> 1. Is this correct?
>
> 2. If so, is there a definitive guide/news item/post somewhere that
> explains the details (how and why mainly)?
>
> 3. If not, why did Mike say this?


Occam's razor:

What Mike said probably translates best to something like this:

Guys, I think it would be a good idea to get rid of PORTDIR now or soon
seeing as we're close to being able to do it. What do you all think?

The complete lack of any announcement or plan and that PORTDIR still
works as always indicates this is probably what he meant by "should" -
just a dev talking about an idea



--
Alan McKinnon
[hidden email]


12