* Mike Kazantsev (mk.fraggod@gmail.com) [02.06.09 17:22]:
> Answer in a neighbor thread reminded me of a question that puzzled me
> from the start: what's the rationale behind moving layman tree
> from /usr/portage/local to /usr/local/portage?
> 
> I can see why all ebuilds belong in the same /usr/portage tree -
> separate (optimized) fs, easy to backup (snapshot?) or omit from backup
> (a lot of small files, completely irrelevant to system operation), easy
> to share between several machines along w/ packages built from it,
> and /usr/portage/packages should be inconsistent w/o layman tree, if
> it's used at all... but moving it to /usr/local, which isn't used
> by gentoo at all seem completely irrational to me, why?
> 

Well my backup strategy only saves the contents of /usr/local all other 
things beneath /usr are easily recoverable. And since this place also 
contains the local overlay with some handmade ebuilds, ebuilds from 
b.g.o and no longer maintained ebuilds, I think this was a rather 
intelligent move. And sometimes you do not want any further upgrade in 
one of your layman overlays, so things might differ from the source and 
are harder to recover than from the attic of portage. Or even the 
overlay may vanish, but you need to keep the ebuilds. So you can sanely 
do a backup just from /usr/local.

packages/ is another thing, because here is the most common use case 
is to build them once and then share them between many computers. And in 
such scenarios you mostly share the whole portage tree via nfs.

> Oh, and I know that I can keep it all in the same place, of course, and
> I always do just that, still...
> 
> -- 
> Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "  |   _   ASCII ribbon campaign 
                              Karl Marx  |  ( )   against HTML e-mail  
 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER                       |   X   against M$ attachments
      mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de  |  / \   www.asciiribbon.org