From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF188138334 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:07:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01C9AE0828; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:07:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D880E07D1 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.5.121] (pool-96-232-204-110.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [96.232.204.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ryao) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FC0B335CC9 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:07:32 +0000 (UTC) From: Richard Yao Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 (1.0) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:07:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree Message-Id: References: <20180709211410.GA17986@linux1.home> <2f7c8b18-8c5d-2931-14a7-9d6d1e00526d@gentoo.org> <29b55e16-bb2e-5a98-13e2-e1482441b417@gentoo.org> <8b47a97d-37be-652a-0298-7e7082506b53@iee.org> <50aa6222-d97c-6fd0-0884-23b27f494135@gentoo.org> <20180710200923.GA21918@linux1.home> <88409c1e-eb34-dad8-c524-2b44de5bc91b@iee.org> <5f2b3a86-c7d5-f588-5ea3-4c13055d8324@gentoo.org> <19d05f13-9166-329e-3533-9920daf276fe@gentoo.org> <20180711204225.GA497@linux1.home> In-Reply-To: <20180711204225.GA497@linux1.home> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15F79) X-Archives-Salt: 2e8ef3c4-e450-4c6f-ac50-612ff8e73fe4 X-Archives-Hash: 808732a452554515f733dea602245e2a > On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:42 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >=20 >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:25:20PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On 07/11/2018 03:29 AM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: >>>> On 07/10/18 16:35, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>>>> On 10/07/18 21:09, William Hubbs wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >>>>>>> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>>>>>>>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the s= tage >>>>>>>> tarballs. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> When sys-apps/portage changes its internal defaults, I'd like for t= he >>>>>>>> upgrade process to call a tool that generates configuration files w= hen >>>>>>>> necessary to ensure that the existing paths remain constant. >>>>>>> I think it should be possible for RelEng to make a start on catalyst= >>>>>>> updates - is there anything that would inhibit going ahead with this= , >>>>>>> potentially? >>>>>> No, nothing. Whatever catalyst puts it the default config will become= >>>>>> our new default. >>>>> I would still like to see notice about what the new defaults are and h= ow >>>>> to migrate current systems to them. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks, >>>>>=20 >>>>> William >>>>>=20 >>>>>> --=20 >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Zac >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>> I'd like to propose that further to the discussion here on the -dev >>>> mailing list, the Council discuss and make a firm proposal on the new >>>> default paths, and then RelEng can make the appropriate updates to the >>>> catalyst builds. A news item can be compiled, with an appropriate wiki >>>> article perhaps on migration strategy (I may volunteer to format such a= >>>> page with some appropriate guidance). >>>> Regards, >>>> Michael / veremitz. >>>>=20 >>> This is a mess, many systems are setup with portage already on a >>> seperate partition for reasons. What advantage does it provide to move >>> the tree now after all these years? I have seen nothing more then lets >>> do this cause I like the ideal lately and it is getting old, there is no= >>> benefit that would justify moving the tree or many other changes that >>> are being made in Gentoo lately. >>=20 >> People who want to move it could just set PORTDIR in make.conf. I don't >> see any reason to move it either. >=20 > Actually, I believe that PORTDIR is becoming a thing of the past. I used to use it 5 years ago. If it does not work due to regressions, we sho= uld fix that. >=20 > Also, the default definitely should not be on /usr per fhs. This would > allow /usr to be mounted read only. > This doesn't affect things like the example above where /usr/portage is > a mount point. >=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20