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 1MBZF1-0001U6-La for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:01:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 86792E0384; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.9]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA1CE048F for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([94.79.175.185]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKsym-1MBZEz0fZR-000doy; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:01:41 +0200 Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:01:40 +0200 From: Sebastian =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FCnther?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] layman tree (re)location - /usr/local Message-ID: <20090602190139.GA8677@marvin.heimnetz.local> References: <20090602211930.44bbbdf7@coercion> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="opJtzjQTFsWo+cga" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090602211930.44bbbdf7@coercion> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/WwnteQ4so0bvpP+9tdoXI7xSyetVsJUhaBbQ JtjyiRWKYGatA+NkdyI4GNdoRUmAMxGPsdTs3Q1FicVgn2JJGg 2ZLLwJwjd00WKCq+2IZJw== X-Archives-Salt: 0b621c36-fffb-42ef-81e1-06c932be14cf X-Archives-Hash: b44e61f98cc496bf0b39d00eaa5bc42c --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * 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? >=20 > 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? >=20 Well my backup strategy only saves the contents of /usr/local all other=20 things beneath /usr are easily recoverable. And since this place also=20 contains the local overlay with some handmade ebuilds, ebuilds from=20 b.g.o and no longer maintained ebuilds, I think this was a rather=20 intelligent move. And sometimes you do not want any further upgrade in=20 one of your layman overlays, so things might differ from the source and=20 are harder to recover than from the attic of portage. Or even the=20 overlay may vanish, but you need to keep the ebuilds. So you can sanely=20 do a backup just from /usr/local. packages/ is another thing, because here is the most common use case=20 is to build them once and then share them between many computers. And in=20 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... >=20 > --=20 > Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net Sebastian --=20 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. " | _ ASCII ribbon campaign=20 Karl Marx | ( ) against HTML e-mail =20 SEB@STI@N G=DCNTHER | X against M$ attachments mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de | / \ www.asciiribbon.org =20 --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoldxIACgkQ4zavaU1MGbTlvgCfRUsVMBXKJn90c1VnQdmH4eVG bdIAoIZpSAQG4qM9GTl9x1KT9MyA2J1+ =VDKa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga--