[gentoo-dev] FHS compliance

[gentoo-dev] FHS compliance

[Chris Moore]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but whatever... 
Gentoo is an awesome distrobution and about the only thing that I can 
point my finger on that I would like to see changed is FHS compliance 
(well mostly...)  For the most part it even meets fhs compliance but 
here is (and I know this would take some work...) how to fix it.

Move the portage package ebuild filetree from /usr/portage to 
/var/lib/portage ( See 5.8.3 +-<pkgtool> and cross reference the 
purposes of the /usr hierarchy with the purpose of /var which is 
summarized as follows: /usr's purpose is shareable read-only data 
(ebuilds are updated!) /var's purpose is sharable/unsharable DYNAMIC 
application data (such as the ebuild dirtree) and /var/lib has the 
specific option for the package tool's dynamic data)

Why would anyone want to do this you ask.  Well, standards are only as 
good as we make them by embracing them... One complaint about *nix is 
that the filesystem is difficult to navigate leaving you guessing as to 
where you need to look for something as it can change from computer to 
computer.  This standard tries to remove that confusion.

Regardless I understand it is a lot of work to move around etc. but I 
think that it is a good move that makes more sense.

-- 
         Chris Moore
---------------------------------
Born Again Bourne Again Believer:
      New Life, GNU/Linux
           Be Free

Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS compliance

[Chad M. Huneycutt]

Chris Moore wrote:
> Regardless I understand it is a lot of work to move around etc. but I 
> think that it is a good move that makes more sense.
> 

Actually, it is trivia to change the Portage Tree's location.  I think 
the hardest part would be updating documentation.

-- 
Chad M. Huneycutt
Ph.D. Student
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~chadh/

Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS compliance

[Chris Houser]

Chris Moore wrote:                    [Sat Feb  2 2002,  3:42:32AM EST]         
> Move the portage package ebuild filetree from /usr/portage to 
> /var/lib/portage ( See 5.8.3 +-<pkgtool> and cross reference the 
> purposes of the /usr hierarchy with the purpose of /var which is 
> summarized as follows: /usr's purpose is shareable read-only data 
> (ebuilds are updated!) /var's purpose is sharable/unsharable DYNAMIC 
> application data (such as the ebuild dirtree) and /var/lib has the 
> specific option for the package tool's dynamic data)

I'm not sure that the ebuild dirtree should be considered 'dynamic'.
The only time it *needs* to be updated (written) is shortly before doing
a merge.  Since the merge is going to be going around writing stuff in
the /usr tree anyway, updating /usr/portage doesn't seem that bad.  I
haven't settled on a personal opinion yet, so I'm mostly playing devil's
advocate here.

Consider a normal case where /usr is actually mounted r/o, such as on a
local network of machines where most of the machines mount /usr
read-only from a remote file server.  In this case, none of these
subordinate machines would need to update /usr/portage.  If you wanted
to install new software, you would do so on the file server where
/usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/portage, etc. are all mounted r/w, and
therefore you could do the 'emerge rsync' as well package merges.

Now that I think about it, this same argument would apply to
/var/db/pkg, though, so I guess to be consistant the two (/usr/portage
and /var/db/pkg) should be in the same place.  Do they both belong in
/usr?

--Chouser

Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS compliance

[John Stalker]

I assume the reason that portage is in /usr and db/pkg is in
/var is that that is where FreeBSD puts ports and db/pkg.
Of course FreeBSD doesn't have any reason to worry about
FHS compliance.  Since I am compulsive about having up to
date versions of everything I mount /usr rw, so this is not
an issue for me personally.

> Chris Moore wrote:                    [Sat Feb  2 2002,  3:42:32AM EST]      
   
> > Move the portage package ebuild filetree from /usr/portage to 
> > /var/lib/portage ( See 5.8.3 +-<pkgtool> and cross reference the 
> > purposes of the /usr hierarchy with the purpose of /var which is 
> > summarized as follows: /usr's purpose is shareable read-only data 
> > (ebuilds are updated!) /var's purpose is sharable/unsharable DYNAMIC 
> > application data (such as the ebuild dirtree) and /var/lib has the 
> > specific option for the package tool's dynamic data)
> 
> I'm not sure that the ebuild dirtree should be considered 'dynamic'.
> The only time it *needs* to be updated (written) is shortly before doing
> a merge.  Since the merge is going to be going around writing stuff in
> the /usr tree anyway, updating /usr/portage doesn't seem that bad.  I
> haven't settled on a personal opinion yet, so I'm mostly playing devil's
> advocate here.
> 
> Consider a normal case where /usr is actually mounted r/o, such as on a
> local network of machines where most of the machines mount /usr
> read-only from a remote file server.  In this case, none of these
> subordinate machines would need to update /usr/portage.  If you wanted
> to install new software, you would do so on the file server where
> /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/portage, etc. are all mounted r/w, and
> therefore you could do the 'emerge rsync' as well package merges.
> 
> Now that I think about it, this same argument would apply to
> /var/db/pkg, though, so I guess to be consistant the two (/usr/portage
> and /var/db/pkg) should be in the same place.  Do they both belong in
> /usr?
> 
> --Chouser
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

--
John Stalker
Department of Mathematics
Princeton University
(609)258-6469

Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS compliance

[George Shapovalov]

I would feel uneasy having package database sitting in /var (people quite 
often allocate separate partition for that one to get some protection for the 
rest of the system as this is the one, which changes most often).
Well, in fact I am about /var/db/pkg. To me it was unnatural place to look 
for the database of installed packages. I there would be a discussion I would 
vote for keeping both portage and db/pkg trees under /usr.

George


On Thursday 07 February 2002 08:32, you wrote:
> I assume the reason that portage is in /usr and db/pkg is in
> /var is that that is where FreeBSD puts ports and db/pkg.
> Of course FreeBSD doesn't have any reason to worry about
> FHS compliance.  Since I am compulsive about having up to
> date versions of everything I mount /usr rw, so this is not
> an issue for me personally.
>
> > Chris Moore wrote:                    [Sat Feb  2 2002,  3:42:32AM EST]
> >
> > > Move the portage package ebuild filetree from /usr/portage to
> > > /var/lib/portage ( See 5.8.3 +-<pkgtool> and cross reference the
> > > purposes of the /usr hierarchy with the purpose of /var which is
> > > summarized as follows: /usr's purpose is shareable read-only data
> > > (ebuilds are updated!) /var's purpose is sharable/unsharable DYNAMIC
> > > application data (such as the ebuild dirtree) and /var/lib has the
> > > specific option for the package tool's dynamic data)
> >
> > I'm not sure that the ebuild dirtree should be considered 'dynamic'.
> > The only time it *needs* to be updated (written) is shortly before doing
> > a merge.  Since the merge is going to be going around writing stuff in
> > the /usr tree anyway, updating /usr/portage doesn't seem that bad.  I
> > haven't settled on a personal opinion yet, so I'm mostly playing devil's
> > advocate here.
> >
> > Consider a normal case where /usr is actually mounted r/o, such as on a
> > local network of machines where most of the machines mount /usr
> > read-only from a remote file server.  In this case, none of these
> > subordinate machines would need to update /usr/portage.  If you wanted
> > to install new software, you would do so on the file server where
> > /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/portage, etc. are all mounted r/w, and
> > therefore you could do the 'emerge rsync' as well package merges.
> >
> > Now that I think about it, this same argument would apply to
> > /var/db/pkg, though, so I guess to be consistant the two (/usr/portage
> > and /var/db/pkg) should be in the same place.  Do they both belong in
> > /usr?
> >
> > --Chouser
> > _______________________________________________
> > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS compliance

[Sebastian Werner]

Am Don, 2002-02-07 um 22.40 schrieb George Shapovalov:
> I would feel uneasy having package database sitting in /var (people quite 
> often allocate separate partition for that one to get some protection for the 
> rest of the system as this is the one, which changes most often).
> Well, in fact I am about /var/db/pkg. To me it was unnatural place to look 
> for the database of installed packages. I there would be a discussion I would 
> vote for keeping both portage and db/pkg trees under /usr.
> 
> George
> 

I would like something like:

/usr/portage/* -> /usr/share/portage/available
/var/db/pkg/* -> /usr/share/portage/installed
/usr/portage/profiles -> /usr/share/portage/profiles
/usr/portage/distfiles -> /usr/share/portage/archives

And the flat hierarchy (as one mails before) of packages in both
directories: available and installed!

Greetings 

Sebastian



> 
> On Thursday 07 February 2002 08:32, you wrote:
> > I assume the reason that portage is in /usr and db/pkg is in
> > /var is that that is where FreeBSD puts ports and db/pkg.
> > Of course FreeBSD doesn't have any reason to worry about
> > FHS compliance.  Since I am compulsive about having up to
> > date versions of everything I mount /usr rw, so this is not
> > an issue for me personally.
> >
> > > Chris Moore wrote:                    [Sat Feb  2 2002,  3:42:32AM EST]
> > >
> > > > Move the portage package ebuild filetree from /usr/portage to
> > > > /var/lib/portage ( See 5.8.3 +-<pkgtool> and cross reference the
> > > > purposes of the /usr hierarchy with the purpose of /var which is
> > > > summarized as follows: /usr's purpose is shareable read-only data
> > > > (ebuilds are updated!) /var's purpose is sharable/unsharable DYNAMIC
> > > > application data (such as the ebuild dirtree) and /var/lib has the
> > > > specific option for the package tool's dynamic data)
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that the ebuild dirtree should be considered 'dynamic'.
> > > The only time it *needs* to be updated (written) is shortly before doing
> > > a merge.  Since the merge is going to be going around writing stuff in
> > > the /usr tree anyway, updating /usr/portage doesn't seem that bad.  I
> > > haven't settled on a personal opinion yet, so I'm mostly playing devil's
> > > advocate here.
> > >
> > > Consider a normal case where /usr is actually mounted r/o, such as on a
> > > local network of machines where most of the machines mount /usr
> > > read-only from a remote file server.  In this case, none of these
> > > subordinate machines would need to update /usr/portage.  If you wanted
> > > to install new software, you would do so on the file server where
> > > /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/portage, etc. are all mounted r/w, and
> > > therefore you could do the 'emerge rsync' as well package merges.
> > >
> > > Now that I think about it, this same argument would apply to
> > > /var/db/pkg, though, so I guess to be consistant the two (/usr/portage
> > > and /var/db/pkg) should be in the same place.  Do they both belong in
> > > /usr?
> > >
> > > --Chouser
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> > > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
-- 
Sebastian Werner
-
http://www.werner-productions.de
sebastian@werner-productions.de
-
Bismarckstraße 51
32427 Minden
-
Mobile: 0179.4590730


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QOTD:
	"It's hard to tell whether he has an ace up his sleeve or if
	the ace is missing from his deck altogether."

Re: [gentoo-dev] FHS compliance

[gentoo-user]

On 7 Feb 2002, Sebastian Werner wrote:

> I would like something like:
>
> /usr/portage/* -> /usr/share/portage/available
> /var/db/pkg/* -> /usr/share/portage/installed
> /usr/portage/profiles -> /usr/share/portage/profiles
> /usr/portage/distfiles -> /usr/share/portage/archives
>

I'd like to add:

/usr/portage/packages -> /usr/share/portage/packages

Paul

-- 
  ___
 /~~~\  | Paul de Vrieze
| O-O | | Student of information management and technology
|  _  | | Mail: Paul@devrieze.net
 \___/  | Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net