Alex Alexander dixit (2010-01-18, 11:07):

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:05:58AM +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I like this suggestion, it certainly makes the whole folder structure
> cleaner. If we're going to fix stuff, lets do it properly once and for
> all.
> 
> Some compatibility code that checks and uses the old default locations
> while printing out warnings would help existing users with the
> transition without breaking current systems. Users with custom PORTDIR
> and friends could be notified through a news item.
> 
> /var/portage/
> /var/portage/tree
> /var/portage/layman
> /var/portage/overlays (non-layman managed, layman could also be in here)
> /var/portage/distfiles
> /var/portage/packages
> 
> or %s/var/usr/

Very much +1.

-- 
[a]