[gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[7v5w7go9ub0o]

(this is a rather obvious fix...)

eselect news has a new notice, advising of the pending change of the
presumed location of the layman directory from /usr/local/portage/layman
to /var/lib/layman. It offers three ways to deal with this location
change. I chose alternative A. (actually moving the directory and
updating make.conf and layman make.conf) and wanted to do it before I
forgot about it.

However, until layman is actually upgraded to version 1.3x, the
script/executable will reference /usr/local/portage/layman and fail. So
layman users choosing alternative A. now may want to add a step; after
moving the directory, put a soft link in the /usr/local/portage pointing
to the new location; i.e.

cd /usr/local/portage; ln -s /var/lib/layman layman

HTH

[gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 03/01/2010 08:08 PM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
> (this is a rather obvious fix...)
>
> eselect news has a new notice, advising of the pending change of the
> presumed location of the layman directory from /usr/local/portage/layman
> to /var/lib/layman. It offers three ways to deal with this location
> change. I chose alternative A. (actually moving the directory and
> updating make.conf and layman make.conf) and wanted to do it before I
> forgot about it.
>
> However, until layman is actually upgraded to version 1.3x, the
> script/executable will reference /usr/local/portage/layman and fail. So
> layman users choosing alternative A. now may want to add a step; after
> moving the directory, put a soft link in the /usr/local/portage pointing
> to the new location; i.e.
>
> cd /usr/local/portage; ln -s /var/lib/layman layman

Or you can edit /var/lib/layman/make.conf and change the locations there.

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Tanstaafl]

On 2010-03-01 1:08 PM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
> So layman users choosing alternative A. now may want to add a step;
> after moving the directory, put a soft link in the /usr/local/portage
> pointing to the new location; i.e.
> 
> cd /usr/local/portage; ln -s /var/lib/layman layman

Thanks, I was planning on doing the same thing and glad to be validated...

Question: the news itme also mentioned the reason as something like
'layman violates the general rule that nothing in portage should touch
anything in /usr/local'...

Well... my local overlays (that I set up a long time ago) are there...
and portage obviously 'touches' those, so... should I move them as well?

-- 

Charles

[gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[7v5w7go9ub0o]

On 03/01/10 13:30, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2010-03-01 1:08 PM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
>> So layman users choosing alternative A. now may want to add a step;
>> after moving the directory, put a soft link in the /usr/local/portage
>> pointing to the new location; i.e.
>>
>> cd /usr/local/portage; ln -s /var/lib/layman layman
>
> Thanks, I was planning on doing the same thing and glad to be validated...
>
> Question: the news itme also mentioned the reason as something like
> 'layman violates the general rule that nothing in portage should touch
> anything in /usr/local'...
>
> Well... my local overlays (that I set up a long time ago) are there...
> and portage obviously 'touches' those, so... should I move them as well?
>

I did; I simply moved the whole layman directory. Works.

[gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[7v5w7go9ub0o]

On 03/01/10 13:26, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 08:08 PM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
>> (this is a rather obvious fix...)
>>
>> eselect news has a new notice, advising of the pending change of the
>> presumed location of the layman directory from /usr/local/portage/layman
>> to /var/lib/layman. It offers three ways to deal with this location
>> change. I chose alternative A. (actually moving the directory and
>> updating make.conf and layman make.conf) and wanted to do it before I
>> forgot about it.
>>
>> However, until layman is actually upgraded to version 1.3x, the
>> script/executable will reference /usr/local/portage/layman and fail. So
>> layman users choosing alternative A. now may want to add a step; after
>> moving the directory, put a soft link in the /usr/local/portage pointing
>> to the new location; i.e.
>>
>> cd /usr/local/portage; ln -s /var/lib/layman layman
>
> Or you can edit /var/lib/layman/make.conf and change the locations there.

That didn't work for me; the current layman script still references the 
old location; which is why I added the soft link.

The new 1.3x script will reference the new location. (though I suppose 
you could upgrade to 1.3 and avoid putting in the soft link)

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Alan McKinnon]

On Monday 01 March 2010 20:30:24 Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2010-03-01 1:08 PM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
> > So layman users choosing alternative A. now may want to add a step;
> > after moving the directory, put a soft link in the /usr/local/portage
> > pointing to the new location; i.e.
> > 
> > cd /usr/local/portage; ln -s /var/lib/layman layman
> 
> Thanks, I was planning on doing the same thing and glad to be validated...
> 
> Question: the news itme also mentioned the reason as something like
> 'layman violates the general rule that nothing in portage should touch
> anything in /usr/local'...
> 
> Well... my local overlays (that I set up a long time ago) are there...
> and portage obviously 'touches' those, so... should I move them as well?

As it turns out, portage is hard-coded to skip over @PORT_DIR/local/ for the 
simple reason that your personal local overlay goes there.

I have $PORT_DIR here redefined to be /var/portage/ and layman goes 
/var/portage/local/layman/, mostly because I think FHS is a good standard and 
it says /usr/ should be able to be mounted read-only.

In short, if you put an explicit entry in make.conf for the layman overlays, 
you will be fine as you are no longer relying on a default that can change.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Tanstaafl]

On 2010-03-01 2:02 PM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
> I did; I simply moved the whole layman directory. Works.

Yeah, but I didn't start off using layman when I added my first local
ebuild a long time ago, so they are not under layman - they are at the
same level - ie, /usr/local/portage contains:

/app-admin
/layman
/mail-client

etc...

/etc/make.conf has:

PORTDIR_OVERLAY="${PORTDIR_OVERLAY} /usr/local/portage"

Now that I think about it - I wouldn't want to add my manually added
ebuilds directly in the layman directory, would I? I'd think that would
confuse layman? Now *I'm* confused (somehow I manage to do this to
myself at least 2 or 3 times a day)...

-- 

Charles

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Tanstaafl]

On 2010-03-01 1:26 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Or you can edit /var/lib/layman/make.conf

Also - why /var/lib/layman, and not /var/lib/portage/layman? It looks a
little odd just dumped in there all by itself.

-- 

Charles

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Alan McKinnon]

On Monday 01 March 2010 22:19:45 Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2010-03-01 1:26 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > Or you can edit /var/lib/layman/make.conf
> 
> Also - why /var/lib/layman, and not /var/lib/portage/layman? It looks a
> little odd just dumped in there all by itself.


Becuase layman is not part of paortgae and can be used without portage (eg 
with paludis).

Therefore it does not belong in the portage directory, which would imply it is 
somehow part of portage when it is not



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 571 bytes --]

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:07:07 -0500, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:

> > Or you can edit /var/lib/layman/make.conf and change the locations
> > there.  
> 
> That didn't work for me; the current layman script still references the 
> old location; which is why I added the soft link.

You have to set the location in /etc/layman/layman.cfg. My layman
directory is in neither of the locations you mention, but it works fine.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 01B: Illegal error - You are not allowed to get this error.
            Next time you will get a penalty for that.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday 01 March 2010 18:30:24 Tanstaafl wrote:

> Well... my local overlays (that I set up a long time ago) are
> there... and portage obviously 'touches' those, so... should I move
> them as well?

I wouldn't. I'm happy with the new default arrangement: mainstream 
packages under /usr/portage; layman overlays under /var/lib/layman; and 
my own variations under /usr/local/portage. Nice clean boundaries.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

[gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[7v5w7go9ub0o]

On 03/01/10 18:09, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:07:07 -0500, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
>
>>> Or you can edit /var/lib/layman/make.conf and change the
>>> locations there.
>>
>> That didn't work for me; the current layman script still
>> references the old location; which is why I added the soft link.
>
> You have to set the location in /etc/layman/layman.cfg. My layman
> directory is in neither of the locations you mention, but it works
> fine.
>

Duh!! (Embarrassed) The first thing I should have looked for.  Thanks.

Obviously this isn't a "bug", but I guess I'll send a suggestion to
bugzilla to add an additional item to make the list more complete, and
so that other newbies (like me) don't loose functionality.

(news presently says:

  A) Moving
    1. Move your current content to /var/lib/layman before upgrading.
    3. Update PORTDIR_OVERLAY in /var/lib/layman/make.conf accordingly.
    2. Make /etc/make.conf source /var/lib/layman/make.conf.

  additional item 4:
    4. Update the /etc/layman/layman.cfg "storage" parameter to reflect
the new location.

Thanks everyone for the discussion.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Zeerak Mustafa Waseem]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1719 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:56:58AM -0500, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
> On 03/01/10 18:09, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:07:07 -0500, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote:
> >
> >>> Or you can edit /var/lib/layman/make.conf and change the
> >>> locations there.
> >>
> >> That didn't work for me; the current layman script still
> >> references the old location; which is why I added the soft link.
> >
> > You have to set the location in /etc/layman/layman.cfg. My layman
> > directory is in neither of the locations you mention, but it works
> > fine.
> >
> 
> Duh!! (Embarrassed) The first thing I should have looked for.  Thanks.
> 
> Obviously this isn't a "bug", but I guess I'll send a suggestion to
> bugzilla to add an additional item to make the list more complete, and
> so that other newbies (like me) don't loose functionality.
> 
> (news presently says:
> 
>   A) Moving
>     1. Move your current content to /var/lib/layman before upgrading.
>     3. Update PORTDIR_OVERLAY in /var/lib/layman/make.conf accordingly.
>     2. Make /etc/make.conf source /var/lib/layman/make.conf.
> 
>   additional item 4:
>     4. Update the /etc/layman/layman.cfg "storage" parameter to reflect
> the new location.
> 
> Thanks everyone for the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Well, you'll only need to edit /etc/layman/layman.cfg in case you don't run the update. I mean I didn't need to edit it because I saw the news item, and thought that I might as well update Layman then, to make sure that I wouldn't forget it.
The news item is, the way I see it, a reminder for when you update layman. And then running etc/cfg/conf-update should take care of the change for you

-- 
Zeerak Waseem

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Stroller]

On 2 Mar 2010, at 15:51, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> ... I'm happy with the new default arrangement: mainstream
> packages under /usr/portage; layman overlays under /var/lib/layman;  
> and
> my own variations under /usr/local/portage. Nice clean boundaries.

Not that I really care, but I find this layout somewhat illogical.

It makes perfect sense to me that /usr/local/portage should be the  
local version of /usr/portage

But the different Unix directories are supposed to have different  
general purposes. I don't remember the details of that off the top of  
my head, but putting something in "/var" ought to indicate that it is  
somewhat different in nature &/or purpose to something in "/usr". The  
main Portage tree & a layman overlay are not so fundamentally  
different, IMO.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 555 bytes --]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:10:21 +0000, Stroller wrote:

> But the different Unix directories are supposed to have different  
> general purposes. I don't remember the details of that off the top of  
> my head, but putting something in "/var" ought to indicate that it is  
> somewhat different in nature &/or purpose to something in "/usr". The  
> main Portage tree & a layman overlay are not so fundamentally  
> different, IMO.

That's right, they should both be in /var.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

There's too much blood in my caffeine system.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:21:23 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:10:21 +0000, Stroller wrote:
> > But the different Unix directories are supposed to have different
> > general purposes. I don't remember the details of that off the top of
> > my head, but putting something in "/var" ought to indicate that it is
> > somewhat different in nature &/or purpose to something in "/usr". The
> > main Portage tree & a layman overlay are not so fundamentally
> > different, IMO.
> 
> That's right, they should both be in /var.

I concur. /usr has a long tradition is Unix of often being mounted read-only 
(think thin clients that mount it over NFS).

My set up is:

portage:	/var/portage/
my overlay:	/var/portage/local/alan/
layman:		/var/portage/local/layman/*

As portage is hard-coded to not fiddle with $PORTDIR/local/, this works well 
for me and every ebuild on the system is under one mount point.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Alex Schuster]

Alan McKinnon writes:

> On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:21:23 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > That's right, they should both be in /var.
> 
> I concur. /usr has a long tradition is Unix of often being mounted
> read-only (think thin clients that mount it over NFS).

Any idea why it's different with Gentoo in the first place? /usr also 
always sounded wrong to me for the portage tree.
And for other things. Shouldn't /usr/src go somewhere into /var? And 
shouldn't /usr/share/config stuff be in /etc?

> My set up is:
> 
> portage:	/var/portage/
> my overlay:	/var/portage/local/alan/
> layman:		/var/portage/local/layman/*
> 
> As portage is hard-coded to not fiddle with $PORTDIR/local/, this works
> well for me and every ebuild on the system is under one mount point.

Where do you have the distfiles? I now have it like this:

/var/portage:        distfiles, pkgdir and tree
/var/portage/tree:   portage tree (on extra partition)
/var/portage/layman: layman
/var/portage/local:  my ebuilds

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 18:33:52 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Alan McKinnon writes:
> > On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:21:23 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > That's right, they should both be in /var.
> > 
> > I concur. /usr has a long tradition is Unix of often being mounted
> > read-only (think thin clients that mount it over NFS).
> 
> Any idea why it's different with Gentoo in the first place? /usr also
> always sounded wrong to me for the portage tree.
> And for other things. Shouldn't /usr/src go somewhere into /var? And
> shouldn't /usr/share/config stuff be in /etc?

/usr/src/ is the traditional place for kernel header files. They are intended 
to be static, change seldom, and definitely not something that users can 
change. Normally, root would update them when needed, and stuff can then build 
against them.

/usr/share/config/ is an upstream thing and if you follow FHS then /etc/ is a 
better place. But Gentoo follows upstream as much as possible so this one gets 
left as-is.

NB: Gentoo only follows FHS when it suits Gentoo devs to do it :-) The 
reasoning offered is usually that Gentoo is a source distro and therefore has 
little needs of FHS, which does tend towards compatibility between binary 
distros

> 
> > My set up is:
> > 
> > portage:	/var/portage/
> > my overlay:	/var/portage/local/alan/
> > layman:		/var/portage/local/layman/*
> > 
> > As portage is hard-coded to not fiddle with $PORTDIR/local/, this works
> > well for me and every ebuild on the system is under one mount point.
> 
> Where do you have the distfiles? I now have it like this:

/var/distfiles/
/var/packages/
/var/rpm/

I do it this way as I am confident portage will leave /var/portage/local/ 
alone, I have no confidence it will do the same for the above three. Plus, 
those dirs can get big, and I keep the portage volume small and tight for 
performance reasons

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[stosss]

I am new to Gentoo and just watching this discussion.

So why does stage three put portage in

/usr

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 18:43:55 stosss wrote:
> I am new to Gentoo and just watching this discussion.
> 
> So why does stage three put portage in
> 
> /usr


I'm not sure this will mean much to you, but the REAL reasons are that

1. It is a historical artifact that no-one thus far saw fit to change,
2. FreeBSD does it that way.


Yes, #2 is for real. Read the ancient histories of where Gentoo originally 
came from as written by drobbins to find out why



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Pending layman directory "relocation"

[Stroller]

On 3 Mar 2010, at 16:33, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Alan McKinnon writes:
> On Wednesday 03 March 2010 14:21:23 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>>> That's right, they should both be in /var.
>>
>> I concur. /usr has a long tradition is Unix of often being mounted
>> read-only (think thin clients that mount it over NFS).
>
> Any idea why it's different with Gentoo in the first place? /usr also
> always sounded wrong to me for the portage tree.

It probably just goes back to a snap descision by Daniel Robbins a  
decade (or nearly) ago.

At one time he wasn't intending to distribute in the same way -  
Portage evolved from a script that he wrote to help him build a binary  
distro he was planning, so perhaps /usr/portage wasn't intended to be  
installed on users' systems (only on his own machine).

Stroller.