[gentoo-dev] Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)

[Peter Hjalmarsson <xake@rymdraket.net>]

mån 2010-01-18 klockan 06:27 +0100 skrev Ulrich Mueller:
> >>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> 
> > isn't a package tree somehow having "system-wide implications"?
> > i'm not really sure about /var/db - doesn't seem to be in FHS.
> > is a package tree a database?
> 
> This depends on your definition of "database". At least some parts of
> the tree (like the files/ dirs) at not very database-like.
> 
> > current ranking through my eyes:
> 
> > 1) /var/layman       con: adds folder to /var, maybe should not
> > 2) /var/db/layman    con: you tell me
> > 3) /var/lib/layman   con: not really /var/lib-style data
> 
> I still think that it should be close to the portage tree, therefore
> in /usr. But if you go for /var then take /var/layman.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> 

I sometimes think the main problem is the tree itself. Portage really
should had a directory of its own, but maybe with anoher structure,
like /var/portage, /var/portage/tree (the current
PORTDIR), /var/portage/distfiles (i.e. split out distfiles from the tree
itself), /var/portage/overlays/layman or /var/portage/layman.
I of course realize that change the structure of the whole portdir would
had inresting complications, so take this comment just as serious as you
like.

But overlays really was an afterthought?