Moving the portage tree to /var

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

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Mike Gilbert-2
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alan McKinnon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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

My comment was based on an earlier version of portage, which didn't
really support PORTDIR overriding repos.conf very well.

It seems to work ok in the current release (2.2.14), so I suppose you
can use whichever method you prefer.

I'm not sure if the portage team has decided what to do long-term.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

Martin Vaeth-2
Mike Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if the portage team has decided what to do long-term.

The long-term plans are to drop PORTDIR and PORTDIR_OVERLAY
completely, the reason being that it is not flexible enough:
With repos.conf you can specify details for every repository,
you are not even forced to have a *single* major repository
(AFAIK, this is called mix-ins in some other package managers),
etc.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Switch from PORTDIR and PORTDIR_OVERLAY to repos.conf - WAS: Moving the portage tree to /var

tanstaafl-2
On 10/29/2014 7:37 AM, Martin Vaeth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The long-term plans are to drop PORTDIR and PORTDIR_OVERLAY
> completely, the reason being that it is not flexible enough:
> With repos.conf you can specify details for every repository,
> you are not even forced to have a *single* major repository
> (AFAIK, this is called mix-ins in some other package managers),
> etc.

Ok, thanks Martin/guys...

So, the short answer is:

"Don't worry about it, if/when something needs to be done to prevent
breakage, we will let you know ahead of time via a news item or other
appropriate method."

Which sounds like the right thing to do for those of us who prefer
stability to (too much) bleeding edge?

But - for those of us who, while preferring stability, also might like
to get a jump on things *if* switching to repos.conf now is:

 a) easy,
 b) fully supported, and
 c) considered perfectly stable,

would it be possible for someone with intimate knowledge of the details
to write up a wiki page for how to go about it?

Thanks again!

12