From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NVs5h-0005Uq-Q9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:44:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 336B8E0A6B; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jolexa.net (jolexa.net [69.164.197.24]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C334E0A6B for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:43:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by jolexa.net (Postfix, from userid 101) id 85F3C5BB8E; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:43:58 +0000 (UTC) To: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] layman storage location (again) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:43:58 +0000 From: Jeremy Olexa In-Reply-To: <4B50C3B4.5050604@gentoo.org> References: <4B50C3B4.5050604@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <966f8dcc0a0b1a7d035fb6c6a19ad01b@jolexa.net> X-Sender: darkside@gentoo.org User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 9df1101e-f88c-4167-b91d-e4e73d2ecd6e X-Archives-Hash: b1f5eacdd66cdac641370564602317bf On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:36:20 +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > Hello! >=20 >=20 > By default layman currently stores overlays into >=20 > /usr/local/portage/layman >=20 > (was /usr/portage/local/layman before that). > As of bug 253725 [1] that's not without problems. I don't think it should be changed again. It is quite annoying to have to hunt down where the $next layman location is. Why can't layman create /usr/local/portage/layman at runtime if it doesn'= t exist and then you can remove the keepdir line from the ebuild?? -Jeremy >=20 > I would like to get it right with the next switch. > Would >=20 > /var/lib/layman >=20 > do well? /var/cache/layman seems inadequate as it might not be > regenerated [2] without losses (as upstream moves along). >=20 > Would be great to hear a few opinions. Thanks! >=20 >=20 >=20 > Sebastian >=20 >=20 > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/253725 > [2] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/filesystem/index.html