[gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Peter Humphrey]

Afternoon all,

As a step towards exporting my portage tree over NFS I decided to move 
/usr/portage to /var/portage, but leave /usr/portage/packages and 
/usr/portage/distfiles where they are.

This is how it looks now:

$ grep DIR= /etc/portage/make.conf
DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
PORTDIR="/var/portage"

$ ls -l /etc/portage/make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 Oct  7 15:28 /etc/portage/make.profile -> 
../../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0

$ mount | grep portage
/dev/mapper/vg7-portage on /var/portage type ext4 (rw,relatime)
/dev/mapper/vg7-packages on /usr/portage/packages type ext4 (rw,relatime)
/dev/mapper/vg7-distfiles on /usr/portage/distfiles type ext4 (rw,relatime)

This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:

$ eix-update
Reading Portage settings ..
Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
[0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
     Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished             
[1] "" /usr/portage (cache: parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign)
     Reading category 162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
[...]

Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see what. I 
used to have layman and a couple of overlays on this box, but they've now 
gone. Well, maybe I left something lying around.

I've grepped for likely-looking strings, read the docs and prodded google, but 
I can't see what I'm missing. Would someone please help me out? I'm sure I'm 
just being dense.

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Bruce Schultz]

On 8 October 2014 1:09:54 AM AEST, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>Afternoon all,
>
>As a step towards exporting my portage tree over NFS I decided to move 
>/usr/portage to /var/portage, but leave /usr/portage/packages and 
>/usr/portage/distfiles where they are.
>
>This is how it looks now:
>
>$ grep DIR= /etc/portage/make.conf
>DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
>PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
>PORTDIR="/var/portage"
>
>$ ls -l /etc/portage/make.profile
>lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 Oct  7 15:28 /etc/portage/make.profile -> 
>../../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0
>
>$ mount | grep portage
>/dev/mapper/vg7-portage on /var/portage type ext4 (rw,relatime)
>/dev/mapper/vg7-packages on /usr/portage/packages type ext4
>(rw,relatime)
>/dev/mapper/vg7-distfiles on /usr/portage/distfiles type ext4
>(rw,relatime)
>
>This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:
>
>$ eix-update
>Reading Portage settings ..
>Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
>[0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
>     Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished             
>[1] "" /usr/portage (cache:
>parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign)
>     Reading category 162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
>[...]
>
>Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see
>what. I 
>used to have layman and a couple of overlays on this box, but they've
>now 
>gone. Well, maybe I left something lying around.
>
>I've grepped for likely-looking strings, read the docs and prodded
>google, but 
>I can't see what I'm missing. Would someone please help me out? I'm
>sure I'm 
>just being dense.

Check /etc/portage/repos.conf

Bruce
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 08 October 2014 01:29:59 Bruce Schultz wrote:

> Check /etc/portage/repos.conf

That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 373 bytes --]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:39:11 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > Check /etc/portage/repos.conf  
> 
> That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.

Indeed. That directory was either empty or absent on all my systems.
copying repos.conf from /usr/share/portage and modifying the path got rid
of the message.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Walk softly and carry a fully charged phazer.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 571 bytes --]

On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 17:08:11 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:39:11 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > Check /etc/portage/repos.conf
> > 
> > That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.
> 
> Indeed. That directory was either empty or absent on all my systems.
> copying repos.conf from /usr/share/portage and modifying the path got rid
> of the message. 


Shouldn't this file be populated by settings in /etc/portage/make.conf?

I can't recall editing manually and it seems to have bespoke settings that I 
have in make.conf ...

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Mike Gilbert]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 17:08:11 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:39:11 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> > > Check /etc/portage/repos.conf
>> >
>> > That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.
>>
>> Indeed. That directory was either empty or absent on all my systems.
>> copying repos.conf from /usr/share/portage and modifying the path got rid
>> of the message.
>
>
> Shouldn't this file be populated by settings in /etc/portage/make.conf?
>
> I can't recall editing manually and it seems to have bespoke settings that I
> have in make.conf ...
>

Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
configure it.

Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
which parse make.conf directly.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1152 bytes --]

On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 17:08:11 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:39:11 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> > > Check /etc/portage/repos.conf
> >> > 
> >> > That's it! Many thanks, Bruce.
> >> 
> >> Indeed. That directory was either empty or absent on all my systems.
> >> copying repos.conf from /usr/share/portage and modifying the path got
> >> rid of the message.
> > 
> > Shouldn't this file be populated by settings in /etc/portage/make.conf?
> > 
> > I can't recall editing manually and it seems to have bespoke settings
> > that I have in make.conf ...
> 
> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
> configure it.
> 
> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
> which parse make.conf directly.


<Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article 
somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>> configure it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>> which parse make.conf directly.

> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article 
> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?

So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.

I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>>> configure it.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>>> which parse make.conf directly.
> 
>> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article 
>> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
> 
> So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
> 
> I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
> guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
> 

I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
Eventually, portage will probably begin to warn you if you have PORTDIR
set in your make.conf, and will tell you to move your settings to
repos.conf (with a pointer to the man page or wiki). That'll stick
around for another while. Then, you'll get a news item telling you that
PORTDIR is going away in a month or so.

Finally, your shit will stop working and that's your final warning =)

More realistically, the portage upgrade might die or ewarn loudly if you
still have PORTDIR set.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1623 bytes --]

On Saturday 25 Oct 2014 17:45:05 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
> >>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
> >>> configure it.
> >>> 
> >>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
> >>> which parse make.conf directly.
> >> 
> >> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news
> >> article somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
> > 
> > So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
> > 
> > I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
> > guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
> 
> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
> Eventually, portage will probably begin to warn you if you have PORTDIR
> set in your make.conf, and will tell you to move your settings to
> repos.conf (with a pointer to the man page or wiki). That'll stick
> around for another while. Then, you'll get a news item telling you that
> PORTDIR is going away in a month or so.
> 
> Finally, your shit will stop working and that's your final warning =)
> 
> More realistically, the portage upgrade might die or ewarn loudly if you
> still have PORTDIR set.

I haven't touched this on my systems yet.  As a matter of fact, I totally 
forgot about it!

(Old age creeps up on you)  :-p

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 10/25/2014 01:49 PM, Mick wrote:
> 
> I haven't touched this on my systems yet.  As a matter of fact, I totally 
> forgot about it!
> 
> (Old age creeps up on you)  :-p
> 

I haven't bothered with it either, I really like being able to do:

  PORTDIR="$REPOS/gentoo-x86" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="" emerge -1 whatever

[gentoo-user] Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

[Martin Vaeth]

Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I haven't bothered with it either, I really like being able to do:
>
>   PORTDIR="$REPOS/gentoo-x86" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="" emerge -1 whatever

Why don't you do emerge -1 whatever::gentoo
Moreover, you can use PORTAGE_REPOSITORIES for temporary overrides
of repos.conf

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 10/26/2014 10:02 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't bothered with it either, I really like being able to do:
>>
>>   PORTDIR="$REPOS/gentoo-x86" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="" emerge -1 whatever
> 
> Why don't you do emerge -1 whatever::gentoo

When adding a new ebuild, I want the entire ::gentoo repo to disappear
so that I get warned if I forgot to do something in ::gentoo-x86.


> Moreover, you can use PORTAGE_REPOSITORIES for temporary overrides
> of repos.conf

Well, it's not (documented?) in stable portage, so there's that =)

If I normally have ::gentoo, ::gentoo-x86, and 3 or 4 overlays, how easy
is it to wipe out everything except ::gentoo-x86 using PORTAGE_REPOSITORIES?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Peter Humphrey]

On Saturday 25 October 2014 12:45:05 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
> >>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
> >>> configure it.
> >>> 
> >>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
> >>> which parse make.conf directly.
> >> 
> >> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news
> >> article somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
> > 
> > So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
> > 
> > I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
> > guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
> 
> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
> Eventually, portage will probably begin to warn you if you have PORTDIR
> set in your make.conf, and will tell you to move your settings to
> repos.conf (with a pointer to the man page or wiki). That'll stick
> around for another while. Then, you'll get a news item telling you that
> PORTDIR is going away in a month or so.
> 
> Finally, your shit will stop working and that's your final warning =)
> 
> More realistically, the portage upgrade might die or ewarn loudly if you
> still have PORTDIR set.

Never mind PORTDIR; it would have been considerate to give a hint that the new 
repos.conf directory had been introduced, and what it portended.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/25/2014 12:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>>>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>>>> configure it.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>>>> which parse make.conf directly.
>>
>>> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article 
>>> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
>>
>> So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
>>
>> I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
>> guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...

> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.

Ok, but that doesn't answer the main question...

Mike Gilbert - apparently a gentoo dev - said that ideally we should
remove the PORTDIR setting.

This begs three questions...

1. Is this correct?

2. If so, is there a definitive guide/news item/post somewhere that
explains the details (how and why mainly)?

3. If not, why did Mike say this?

thanks...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Alan McKinnon]

On 27/10/2014 17:45, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/25/2014 12:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>>>>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>>>>> configure it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>>>>> which parse make.conf directly.
>>>
>>>> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article 
>>>> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
>>>
>>> So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
>>>
>>> I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
>>> guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
> 
>> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
> 
> Ok, but that doesn't answer the main question...
> 
> Mike Gilbert - apparently a gentoo dev - said that ideally we should
> remove the PORTDIR setting.
> 
> This begs three questions...
> 
> 1. Is this correct?
> 
> 2. If so, is there a definitive guide/news item/post somewhere that
> explains the details (how and why mainly)?
> 
> 3. If not, why did Mike say this?


Occam's razor:

What Mike said probably translates best to something like this:

Guys, I think it would be a good idea to get rid of PORTDIR now or soon
seeing as we're close to being able to do it. What do you all think?

The complete lack of any announcement or plan and that PORTDIR still
works as always indicates this is probably what he meant by "should" -
just a dev talking about an idea



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Mike Gilbert]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/10/2014 17:45, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 10/25/2014 12:45 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2014 09:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>> On 10/7/2014 6:03 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 07 Oct 2014 22:56:28 Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>>>> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
>>>>>> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
>>>>>> configure it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, that will break some of the third-party portage tools
>>>>>> which parse make.conf directly.
>>>>
>>>>> <Scratches head> ... so are we supposed to guess this, wait for a news article
>>>>> somewhere, or will it show up in an emerge log somewhere?
>>>>
>>>> So... would appreciate a response from someone who knows.
>>>>
>>>> I really dislike making systemic changes like this without really solid
>>>> guidance on how (and hopefully the why too)...
>>
>>> I'm only guessing, but I don't think PORTDIR is going away for a while.
>>
>> Ok, but that doesn't answer the main question...
>>
>> Mike Gilbert - apparently a gentoo dev - said that ideally we should
>> remove the PORTDIR setting.
>>
>> This begs three questions...
>>
>> 1. Is this correct?
>>
>> 2. If so, is there a definitive guide/news item/post somewhere that
>> explains the details (how and why mainly)?
>>
>> 3. If not, why did Mike say this?
>
>
> Occam's razor:
>
> What Mike said probably translates best to something like this:
>
> Guys, I think it would be a good idea to get rid of PORTDIR now or soon
> seeing as we're close to being able to do it. What do you all think?
>
> The complete lack of any announcement or plan and that PORTDIR still
> works as always indicates this is probably what he meant by "should" -
> just a dev talking about an idea

My comment was based on an earlier version of portage, which didn't
really support PORTDIR overriding repos.conf very well.

It seems to work ok in the current release (2.2.14), so I suppose you
can use whichever method you prefer.

I'm not sure if the portage team has decided what to do long-term.

[gentoo-user] Re: Moving the portage tree to /var

[Martin Vaeth]

Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if the portage team has decided what to do long-term.

The long-term plans are to drop PORTDIR and PORTDIR_OVERLAY
completely, the reason being that it is not flexible enough:
With repos.conf you can specify details for every repository,
you are not even forced to have a *single* major repository
(AFAIK, this is called mix-ins in some other package managers),
etc.

[gentoo-user] Switch from PORTDIR and PORTDIR_OVERLAY to repos.conf - WAS: Moving the portage tree to /var

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/29/2014 7:37 AM, Martin Vaeth <martin@mvath.de> wrote:
> The long-term plans are to drop PORTDIR and PORTDIR_OVERLAY
> completely, the reason being that it is not flexible enough:
> With repos.conf you can specify details for every repository,
> you are not even forced to have a *single* major repository
> (AFAIK, this is called mix-ins in some other package managers),
> etc.

Ok, thanks Martin/guys...

So, the short answer is:

"Don't worry about it, if/when something needs to be done to prevent
breakage, we will let you know ahead of time via a news item or other
appropriate method."

Which sounds like the right thing to do for those of us who prefer
stability to (too much) bleeding edge?

But - for those of us who, while preferring stability, also might like
to get a jump on things *if* switching to repos.conf now is:

 a) easy,
 b) fully supported, and
 c) considered perfectly stable,

would it be possible for someone with intimate knowledge of the details
to write up a wiki page for how to go about it?

Thanks again!

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/7/2014 5:56 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Quite the opposite. Ideally, you should remove the PORTDIR setting
> from make.conf. repos.conf is the newer, more flexible way to
> configure it.

Ok, did I miss a news item on this?

Is this discussed in detail somewhere?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 980 bytes --]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:09:54 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:
> 
> $ eix-update
> Reading Portage settings ..
> Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
> [0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished             
> [1] "" /usr/portage (cache:
> parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign) Reading category
> parse|162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
> [...]
> 
> Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see
> what.

I've just installed a new system with the tree in /var from the outset
and no /usr/portage at all, and eix behaves like this (I hadn't noticed
until you pointed it out) so it may be the /usr/portage path is hard
coded.

This doesn't cause any problems but now you have pointed it out it is
going to annoy me.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Tomas Mozes]

On 2014-10-07 17:09, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Afternoon all,
> 
> As a step towards exporting my portage tree over NFS I decided to move
> /usr/portage to /var/portage, but leave /usr/portage/packages and
> /usr/portage/distfiles where they are.
> 
> This is how it looks now:
> 
> $ grep DIR= /etc/portage/make.conf
> DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
> PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
> PORTDIR="/var/portage"
> 
> $ ls -l /etc/portage/make.profile
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 Oct  7 15:28 /etc/portage/make.profile ->
> ../../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0
> 
> $ mount | grep portage
> /dev/mapper/vg7-portage on /var/portage type ext4 (rw,relatime)
> /dev/mapper/vg7-packages on /usr/portage/packages type ext4 
> (rw,relatime)
> /dev/mapper/vg7-distfiles on /usr/portage/distfiles type ext4 
> (rw,relatime)
> 
> This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:
> 
> $ eix-update
> Reading Portage settings ..
> Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
> [0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished
> [1] "" /usr/portage (cache: 
> parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign)
>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
> [...]
> 
> Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see 
> what. I
> used to have layman and a couple of overlays on this box, but they've 
> now
> gone. Well, maybe I left something lying around.
> 
> I've grepped for likely-looking strings, read the docs and prodded 
> google, but
> I can't see what I'm missing. Would someone please help me out? I'm 
> sure I'm
> just being dense.

Try adjusting /etc/portage/repos.conf/gentoo.conf

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving the portage tree to /var

[Tomas Mozes]

On 2014-10-07 17:57, Tomas Mozes wrote:
> On 2014-10-07 17:09, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> Afternoon all,
>> 
>> As a step towards exporting my portage tree over NFS I decided to move
>> /usr/portage to /var/portage, but leave /usr/portage/packages and
>> /usr/portage/distfiles where they are.
>> 
>> This is how it looks now:
>> 
>> $ grep DIR= /etc/portage/make.conf
>> DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
>> PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
>> PORTDIR="/var/portage"
>> 
>> $ ls -l /etc/portage/make.profile
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 51 Oct  7 15:28 /etc/portage/make.profile ->
>> ../../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0
>> 
>> $ mount | grep portage
>> /dev/mapper/vg7-portage on /var/portage type ext4 (rw,relatime)
>> /dev/mapper/vg7-packages on /usr/portage/packages type ext4 
>> (rw,relatime)
>> /dev/mapper/vg7-distfiles on /usr/portage/distfiles type ext4 
>> (rw,relatime)
>> 
>> This seems to work OK, except for eix-update, which gives me this:
>> 
>> $ eix-update
>> Reading Portage settings ..
>> Building database (/var/cache/eix/portage.eix) ..
>> [0] "gentoo" /var/portage/ (cache: metadata-md5-or-flat)
>>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) Finished
>> [1] "" /usr/portage (cache: 
>> parse|ebuild*#metadata-md5#metadata-flat#assign)
>>      Reading category 162|162 (100%) EMPTY!
>> [...]
>> 
>> Evidently something is still pointing to /usr/portage, but I can't see 
>> what. I
>> used to have layman and a couple of overlays on this box, but they've 
>> now
>> gone. Well, maybe I left something lying around.
>> 
>> I've grepped for likely-looking strings, read the docs and prodded 
>> google, but
>> I can't see what I'm missing. Would someone please help me out? I'm 
>> sure I'm
>> just being dense.
> 
> Try adjusting /etc/portage/repos.conf/gentoo.conf

Sorry, didn't see the reply before.