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 <gentoo-user+bounces-119698-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>) id 1Pm3WJ-0008Jd-Qi for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:15:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CD05E0B3F for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:15:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B9219E0ABC for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:51:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Feb 2011 11:51:35 -0000 Received: from p4FE053E1.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO fly) [79.224.83.225] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 06 Feb 2011 12:51:35 +0100 X-Authenticated: #19862253 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19/J7cMEsV/f+04eDSk/RvL4JaNT+ylAmND3tHDKB 3a25v9YtIbsSps Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:53:20 +0100 From: Cedric Sodhi <manday@gmx.net> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr Message-ID: <20110206115320.GA2157@fly> References: <20110205184311.GC2386@fly> <20110206021520.0e914437@sf.home> <AANLkTik=Ars6ktxnohMN1jh2Y0cg5SLA3ubZT-5F0M7D@mail.gmail.com> <20110206104930.42e9e085@sf.home> <20110206093149.GB2741@fly> <20110206105653.45ae2a5f@digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110206105653.45ae2a5f@digimed.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: e00d647180fd42cdcdec55fd171ccb84 On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:56:53AM +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:31:49 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote: > > > 1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new directory, > > the old tree would rot in /usr > > And people would hit problems because /var bas filled up! I'm not saying > the current default is right, it's not, but you are over-simplifying the > work involved in making a change. I disagree. You are overcomplifying it instead. The proposed patch would involve exactly: 1.) Change the default (the value that is used if no explicit value is given) 2.) etc-update make.conf to explicitly specify the old location as the desired value. Period. Patches have always required reviewing by the user through etc-update. Your attempts to argue that patching portage with that simple change would introduce problems of unpreceeded magnitude are pharisaic. It's the same though significantly simpler as other updates to whatever package you like. Your argument that the developers should not be bothered with minor issues such as this one because they have bigger issues is the trillionth logical fallacy in this thread. I'm honestly tired of it and I will not counter argue this because the wrongness of your reasoning should be trivial to spot with at least a minimum of thought. Hint: We (users & developers) have to first reach the decision that it *should* be changed. We haven't even reach that point and are crawling through a mud of ignorance instead. > > Actually, the way to make the change is not to change the default, yet, > but to change the default make.conf for new installs, and the > accompanying documentation. That way existing systems are unaffected, > which is how it should be with a change of default.