Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Update /usr/portage references (bug 378603)

[Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1148 bytes --]

On 08/05/2018 10:46 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> --- a/lib/portage/cache/flat_hash.py
>>> +++ b/lib/portage/cache/flat_hash.py
>>> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ class database(fs_template.FsBased):
>>>  					# Only recurse 1 deep, in order to avoid iteration over
>>>  					# entries from another nested cache instance. This can
>>>  					# happen if the user nests an overlay inside
>>> -					# /usr/portage/local as in bug #302764.
>>> +					# /var/db/repos/gentoo/local as in bug #302764.
>>
>> Shouldn't a local overlay be in /var/db/repos/local, but never inside
>> of the gentoo repo?
> 
> Yes, but for a long time /usr/local/portage was somewhat standard, in
> fact it's still mentioned here:
> 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Custom_repository
> 
> Nowadays, repository verification will prevent that from working...

Actually the wiki has /usr/local/portage, but the default rsync options
have has --exclude=/local for a very long time. It might be safe to
remove it, but I guess it's probably safest to trigger a warning message
first, since some people might still be using it with rsync-verify disabled.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]