[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving default location of portage tree

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1605 bytes --]

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
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying.
>>>>
>>>> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage
>>>> tarballs.
>>>>
>>>> When sys-apps/portage changes its internal defaults, I'd like for the
>>>> upgrade process to call a tool that generates configuration files when
>>>> 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 how
> to migrate current systems to them.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> Zac
>>
>
>
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.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]