[gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Cedric Sodhi]

There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.

/var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
with the portage tree.

It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and heavy
changes, which is usually accounted for my choosing an appropriate
filesystem and configuring it accordingly.

/usr is expected to be a static directory with mostly read access and
few to no changes on a running system.

This issue seems to have been ignored for a long time. When I asked
about it, I met two types of responses:

a) Those who thought about it and agreed, that portage should be moved
b) Those who replied "deal with it"

If you can think of good counter arguement which *logically* supports
that portage should by default reside in /usr (including the distfiles
and everything else variable) please tell us. If not, please refrain
from logically irrelevant statements such as the above, "you can always
do <insert some random workarround here>" or similar ones.

If you have further arguments to support my point, I'd also welcome them
to the discussion,

I expect 90% or more of the real arguments to support my point.

I've also heard rumours that such an outcome has already been there in
the past, yet, gentoo developers ignored it and kept portage in /usr for
unknown and most likely unlogical reasons. I believe these rumours.

If again, the logical conclusion will be that portage should be moved
but it is not acted upon but logic is ignored, please ask yourself what
kind of distribution we are.

"It is a community built around a distribution which is driven by
more than 300 developers and thousands of users. "


regards, MD

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

where do the bsds put their ports?

also: just set the PORTDIR variable wherever you want it to point. There is no 
reason to annoy the rest of humanity with a mailing list point complaining 
about a perceived problem that is none.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Meik Frischke]

On Saturday 05 February 2011 19:43:11, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
> 
> /var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
> with the portage tree.
> 
> It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and heavy
> changes, which is usually accounted for my choosing an appropriate
> filesystem and configuring it accordingly.
> 
> /usr is expected to be a static directory with mostly read access and
> few to no changes on a running system.
> 
> This issue seems to have been ignored for a long time. When I asked
> about it, I met two types of responses:
> 
> a) Those who thought about it and agreed, that portage should be moved
> b) Those who replied "deal with it"
> 
> If you can think of good counter arguement which *logically* supports
> that portage should by default reside in /usr (including the distfiles
> and everything else variable) please tell us. If not, please refrain
> from logically irrelevant statements such as the above, "you can always
> do <insert some random workarround here>" or similar ones.
> 
> If you have further arguments to support my point, I'd also welcome them
> to the discussion,
> 
> I expect 90% or more of the real arguments to support my point.
> 
> I've also heard rumours that such an outcome has already been there in
> the past, yet, gentoo developers ignored it and kept portage in /usr for
> unknown and most likely unlogical reasons. I believe these rumours.
> 
> If again, the logical conclusion will be that portage should be moved
> but it is not acted upon but logic is ignored, please ask yourself what
> kind of distribution we are.
> 
> "It is a community built around a distribution which is driven by
> more than 300 developers and thousands of users. "
> 
> 
> regards, MD
> 

Portage DEFAULTS to /usr/portage as the location for the tree etc. While that may be wrong, you can always change the PORTDIR variable in make.conf ( same with DISTDIR and PKGDIR ). Since it's something you can change in the very beginning of the installation, I wouldn't count that as a workaround ( as symlinking, (re)mounting etc. would be ). I don't see where the problem is ? There is nothing wrong with portage itself in that matter. One could propose to change the default PORTDIR in make.globals and in the docs though.

Sincerely

Meik Frischke

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Alex Schuster]

Cedric Sodhi writes:

> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
> 
> /var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
> with the portage tree.

That's why I have /var/portage, with subdirectories tree, distfiles,
local, layman, packges and (for my 32bit chroot) packages.32. That's how
I think it should be, so I change it that way. Recently I also began
moving /var/tmp/portage there, so my /var partition could no longer
become full because of emerging openoffice.


> If again, the logical conclusion will be that portage should be moved
> but it is not acted upon but logic is ignored, please ask yourself what
> kind of distribution we are.
> 
> "It is a community built around a distribution which is driven by
> more than 300 developers and thousands of users. "

Well, I agree with your point, and I find it strange that this has not
been changed, but - I don't care too much about it. I make a few quick
changes when I install a Gentoo, and that's it.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Cedric Sodhi <manday@gmx.net> wrote:
> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
>
<SNIP>

I have no opinion on the subject really, but can't you build a link
from /usr/portage to anywhere you want to put it? I put
/usr/portage/distfiles on a separate partition as I hate running out
of disk space on my root partition when I've not cleaned up distfiles.

The only reason I could give for not changing is I don't want to teach
my fingers /var/portage vs what they already know. That's a pretty
weak reason.

- Mark

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 02/05/2011 08:43 PM, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
>[...]
> If you can think of good counter arguement which *logically* supports
> that portage should by default reside in /usr (including the distfiles
> and everything else variable) please tell us. If not, please refrain
> from logically irrelevant statements such as the above, "you can always
> do<insert some random workarround here>" or similar ones.

How is utilizing the fully supported configuration options of portage a 
"random workaround"?  It's neither random, *nor* a workaround.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 20:43 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Cedric 
Sodhi did opine thusly:

> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.

I've been saying this for years. I always change PORTDIR everywhere to 
/var/portage


> /var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
> with the portage tree.
> 
> It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and heavy
> changes, which is usually accounted for my choosing an appropriate
> filesystem and configuring it accordingly.

100% correct. The tree is a database. 

No-one in their right mind would put MySQL data dirs in /usr....
Juts like no-one would put the portage build dir in /usr either

> 
> /usr is expected to be a static directory with mostly read access and
> few to no changes on a running system.
> 
> This issue seems to have been ignored for a long time. When I asked
> about it, I met two types of responses:
> 
> a) Those who thought about it and agreed, that portage should be moved
> b) Those who replied "deal with it"
> 
> If you can think of good counter arguement which *logically* supports
> that portage should by default reside in /usr (including the distfiles
> and everything else variable) please tell us. 

Here's the real reason:

FreeBSD puts ports in /usr.
So Daniel put portage in /usr when he ported ports to portage
Everyone else since has left it there.

Sometimes the obvious reason really is the right one.


> If not, please refrain
> from logically irrelevant statements such as the above, "you can always
> do <insert some random workarround here>" or similar ones.
> 
> If you have further arguments to support my point, I'd also welcome them
> to the discussion,
> 
> I expect 90% or more of the real arguments to support my point.
> 
> I've also heard rumours that such an outcome has already been there in
> the past, yet, gentoo developers ignored it and kept portage in /usr for
> unknown and most likely unlogical reasons. I believe these rumours.
> 
> If again, the logical conclusion will be that portage should be moved
> but it is not acted upon but logic is ignored, please ask yourself what
> kind of distribution we are.
> 
> "It is a community built around a distribution which is driven by
> more than 300 developers and thousands of users. "

It's trivially easy to change, so there's no good reason not to.

Reset PORTDIR, edit layman's configs, create new directories.
In the vast majority of cases that's all that's required.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Dale]

Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
>
> /var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
> with the portage tree.
>
> It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and heavy
> changes, which is usually accounted for my choosing an appropriate
> filesystem and configuring it accordingly.
>
> /usr is expected to be a static directory with mostly read access and
> few to no changes on a running system.
>
> This issue seems to have been ignored for a long time. When I asked
> about it, I met two types of responses:
>
> a) Those who thought about it and agreed, that portage should be moved
> b) Those who replied "deal with it"
>
> If you can think of good counter arguement which *logically* supports
> that portage should by default reside in /usr (including the distfiles
> and everything else variable) please tell us. If not, please refrain
> from logically irrelevant statements such as the above, "you can always
> do<insert some random workarround here>" or similar ones.
>
> If you have further arguments to support my point, I'd also welcome them
> to the discussion,
>
> I expect 90% or more of the real arguments to support my point.
>
> I've also heard rumours that such an outcome has already been there in
> the past, yet, gentoo developers ignored it and kept portage in /usr for
> unknown and most likely unlogical reasons. I believe these rumours.
>
> If again, the logical conclusion will be that portage should be moved
> but it is not acted upon but logic is ignored, please ask yourself what
> kind of distribution we are.
>
> "It is a community built around a distribution which is driven by
> more than 300 developers and thousands of users. "
>
>
> regards, MD
>
>
>    

Moving the tree out of /usr has been discussed by the devs several 
times.  Each time, they have decided not to move it.  I doubt that is 
going to change anytime soon.

On another note, you can edit make.conf and put it anywhere you want.  
It being in /usr is not etched in stone or anything.  This is from my 
make.conf:

# PORTDIR is the location of the portage tree. This is the repository
#     for all profile information as well as all ebuilds. This directory
#     itself can reach 200M. WE DO NOT RECOMMEND that you change this.
#PORTDIR=/usr/portage
#

I don't think that warning is in the newer ones.  That one came from the 
1.4 days.  Sort of a old install.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Cedric Sodhi]

Replying to the three before messages which basically made the point
that one can change the location manyually.

I'm aware of that and as I've pointed out I consider it irrelevant to
the point that I'm making (with which you appear to agree at least
principally), that is, that it should not be the default.

A wrong default is wrong. What kind of an aittude is it to acccept a
flawed default and just make it right for one self.

I for my part have of course changed it but I want to straighten it out
for the whole distribution, for those who happen not to have read about
how to change it, for those who can't be arsed to fix every single bit
that gentoo makes wrong by its own.

And what bothers me most is that, as you said, it hasnt been changed in
a decade, out of pure ignorance, given that it has been brought up
several times already.

It does not conform with any accepted standard, it is wrong per se, it
should be changed.

THIS is the point, please, as I already said in my first email, don't
make any more suggestions how one can change this for oneself. It's
irrelevant to the issue.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Cedric Sodhi]

You know... I appreciate all your helpful "if you want to move portage
to /var you can do it by..." 'suggestions', but, can you imagine the
following situation:

You push a change to a repository, on your way to work you realize that
there was an error in the commit so as soon as you get to work you send
out an email to everyone "Please do not pull until today evening when I
have reverted that". And when you're back home and check the status you
see that about everyone who could possibly have read you mail pulled
from the repo.


A parabel for the technically affine...

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.

/usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be the 
appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical back then.

And if something is not broken, don't change it. You do not know what old 
tool/setting/whatever might suffocate.

PORTDIR is not a mere workaround. If you are sure that there is no old crap 
lingering around that might expect portdir as /usr/portage, use it.

Besides /usr/src/ contains linux and other sources. Wrong too? It is f* 
tradition. portage does not contain temporary data or database stuff - that 
crap is in /var/db, /var/tmp/portage, /var/lib. So the worst stuff is somewhere 
already. 

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Cedric Sodhi]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:45:23PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
> 
> /usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be the 
> appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical back then.
It was consistent back then, I agree.

> And if something is not broken, don't change it. You do not know what old 
> tool/setting/whatever might suffocate.
As I've pointed out portage in /usr *is* broken.

If a tool/setting/whatever might suffocate it

1) does not comply to the current state of gentoo
2) will equally suffocate if you change the location trough make.conf

As had been correctly pointed out, the only thing that is really
required is chaning the *default* portdir(s)

> PORTDIR is not a mere workaround. If you are sure that there is no old crap 
> lingering around that might expect portdir as /usr/portage, use it.
> 
Workarround/"Change to make it work", that's hair splitting. Again, we
are distracted from the actuall issue which is a (noadays) nonsensical
default. If I find out that something relies on a fixed portdir, I will
report a bug on that. I will not subordinate the correctness of an Issue
A to the incorrectnes of an Issue B.

> Besides /usr/src/ contains linux and other sources. Wrong too? It is f* 
> tradition. portage does not contain temporary data or database stuff - that 
> crap is in /var/db, /var/tmp/portage, /var/lib. So the worst stuff is somewhere 
> already.

You wanna go there? Take my hand, let's go! But consider it a excursion,
nothing related to the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

linux sources do not belong in /usr/ either. However, they are
historically based there and this tradition is more deeply rooted than a
mere wrong location in gentoo's portage design. There are more flaws
like that, none of which justifies that portage should do the same
mistakes.

Portage does exactly contain temporary data. It contains a database in
the most exact meaning of the word. Your argument is absurd.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:45 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Volker 
Armin Hemmann did opine thusly:

> again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
> 
> /usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be the
> appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical back then.
> 
> And if something is not broken, don't change it. You do not know what old
> tool/setting/whatever might suffocate.
> 
> PORTDIR is not a mere workaround. If you are sure that there is no old crap
> lingering around that might expect portdir as /usr/portage, use it.
> 
> Besides /usr/src/ contains linux and other sources. Wrong too? It is f*
> tradition. portage does not contain temporary data or database stuff - that
> crap is in /var/db, /var/tmp/portage, /var/lib. So the worst stuff is
> somewhere already.

Tradition on it's own is a lousy idea for retaining anything.

A tradition worth keeping is one that's worth having because it has use. 
However most traditions are merely "but we always did it this way..."

/usr/portage is a tradition, a hangover from BSD.
LFS is a standard and /usr/portage gets in the way of the standard.
Guess which one should trump the other?

And the portage tree IS a database. You put (or cause to be put) data into it, 
which can be amended, edited, added to or removed, other actors query the 
database for information (emerge, eix, etc). The fact that it is updated on 
demand and not on the fly, that it is not relational in nature, that it 
doesn't have "sql" anywhere in it's name and that it is purely file-based does 
not detract in the slightest from the simple fact that the tree is a database.

It's just plain outright stupid to have a default location for something (that 
by definition is variable) in a place that by definition (or by de-facto 
consent) must be mountable read-only and have no ill effects on the rest of 
the machine.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Mark Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2175 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>wrote:

> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:45 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Volker
> Armin Hemmann did opine thusly:
>
> > again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
> >
> > /usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be
> the
> > appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical back then.
> >
> > And if something is not broken, don't change it. You do not know what old
> > tool/setting/whatever might suffocate.
> >
> > PORTDIR is not a mere workaround. If you are sure that there is no old
> crap
> > lingering around that might expect portdir as /usr/portage, use it.
> >
> > Besides /usr/src/ contains linux and other sources. Wrong too? It is f*
> > tradition. portage does not contain temporary data or database stuff -
> that
> > crap is in /var/db, /var/tmp/portage, /var/lib. So the worst stuff is
> > somewhere already.
>
> Tradition on it's own is a lousy idea for retaining anything.
>
> A tradition worth keeping is one that's worth having because it has use.
> However most traditions are merely "but we always did it this way..."
>
> /usr/portage is a tradition, a hangover from BSD.
> LFS is a standard and /usr/portage gets in the way of the standard.
> Guess which one should trump the other?
>
> And the portage tree IS a database. You put (or cause to be put) data into
> it,
> which can be amended, edited, added to or removed, other actors query the
> database for information (emerge, eix, etc). The fact that it is updated on
> demand and not on the fly, that it is not relational in nature, that it
> doesn't have "sql" anywhere in it's name and that it is purely file-based
> does
> not detract in the slightest from the simple fact that the tree is a
> database.
>
> It's just plain outright stupid to have a default location for something
> (that
> by definition is variable) in a place that by definition (or by de-facto
> consent) must be mountable read-only and have no ill effects on the rest of
> the machine.
>
> --
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
>
>
Just put portage on it's own partition (LVM) and be done with it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2710 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Alex Schuster]

Cedric Sodhi writes:

> Replying to the three before messages which basically made the point
> that one can change the location manyually.
[...]
> It does not conform with any accepted standard, it is wrong per se, it
> should be changed.
> 
> THIS is the point, please, as I already said in my first email, don't
> make any more suggestions how one can change this for oneself. It's
> irrelevant to the issue.

Hmm, I didn't make myself clear. I did not suggest you should change
your PORTDIR, of course you already had done this. And yes, you are
right, the location is wrong, it should be changed. But somehow the devs
are not really interested in doing this, so I doubt it's worth the battle.
So I change the PORTDIR, and now at least my own Gentoo does things
right, and is of course cooler than those Gentoos having the totally
wrong /usr/portage location.

/usr/src is also totally wrong, and I cannot even change this location.
But that does not worry me too much either. I assume there are people
also trying to change this, but it won't happen. That's bad, but that's
just how it is.

	Wonko

[gentoo-user] Re: Portage is misplaced in /usr

[walt]

On 02/05/2011 12:05 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 20:43 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Cedric
> Sodhi did opine thusly:
>
>> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
>> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
>
> I've been saying this for years. I always change PORTDIR everywhere to
> /var/portage
>
>
>> /var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case
>> with the portage tree.
>>
>> It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and heavy
>> changes, which is usually accounted for my choosing an appropriate
>> filesystem and configuring it accordingly.
>
> 100% correct. The tree is a database.
>
> No-one in their right mind would put MySQL data dirs in /usr....
> Juts like no-one would put the portage build dir in /usr either
>
>>
>> /usr is expected to be a static directory with mostly read access and
>> few to no changes on a running system.
>>
>> This issue seems to have been ignored for a long time. When I asked
>> about it, I met two types of responses:
>>
>> a) Those who thought about it and agreed, that portage should be moved
>> b) Those who replied "deal with it"
>>
>> If you can think of good counter arguement which *logically* supports
>> that portage should by default reside in /usr (including the distfiles
>> and everything else variable) please tell us.
>
> Here's the real reason:
>
> FreeBSD puts ports in /usr.
> So Daniel put portage in /usr when he ported ports to portage
> Everyone else since has left it there.
>
> Sometimes the obvious reason really is the right one.

Good grief, I just finished sending a reply that says exactly the same.
I should have waited a day.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 00:23 on Sunday 06 February 2011, Mark Shields 
did opine thusly:

> > It's just plain outright stupid to have a default location for something
> > (that
> > by definition is variable) in a place that by definition (or by de-facto
> > consent) must be mountable read-only and have no ill effects on the rest
> > of the machine.
> > 
> > --
> > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
> 
> Just put portage on it's own partition (LVM) and be done with it.


Mark,

I cannot believe that you actually typed that, you know better.

But my eyes don't lie.

So. Someone comes along with a valid beef about a default. This default can be 
changed, this is Gentoo. Ye gods, we change shit around here at the drop of a 
hat for no good reason sometimes. And your answer is to install LVM with it's 
deps, re-organize the disk, learn how to use lvm (not everyone knows the 
product or uses it) then go through the pain of moving stuff which not all 
users know how to do.

All to get around a silly ancient default that long ago failed the "most 
useful to most people" test.

You want to re-think your answer maybe?


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Saturday 05 February 2011 23:52:20 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:45 on Saturday 05 February 2011, Volker
> 
> Armin Hemmann did opine thusly:
> > again, you are starting from a mistaken premise.
> > 
> > /usr/portage makes sense, when you consider its history. It may not be
> > the appropriate decision, but with its background it was logical back
> > then.
> > 
> > And if something is not broken, don't change it. You do not know what
> > old
> > tool/setting/whatever might suffocate.
> > 
> > PORTDIR is not a mere workaround. If you are sure that there is no old
> > crap lingering around that might expect portdir as /usr/portage, use
> > it.
> > 
> > Besides /usr/src/ contains linux and other sources. Wrong too? It is f*
> > tradition. portage does not contain temporary data or database stuff -
> > that crap is in /var/db, /var/tmp/portage, /var/lib. So the worst stuff
> > is somewhere already.
> 
> Tradition on it's own is a lousy idea for retaining anything.
> 
> A tradition worth keeping is one that's worth having because it has use.
> However most traditions are merely "but we always did it this way..."
> 
> /usr/portage is a tradition, a hangover from BSD.
> LFS is a standard and /usr/portage gets in the way of the standard.
> Guess which one should trump the other?
> 
> And the portage tree IS a database. You put (or cause to be put) data into
> it, which can be amended, edited, added to or removed, other actors query
> the database for information (emerge, eix, etc). The fact that it is
> updated on demand and not on the fly, that it is not relational in nature,
> that it doesn't have "sql" anywhere in it's name and that it is purely
> file-based does not detract in the slightest from the simple fact that the
> tree is a database.
> 
> It's just plain outright stupid to have a default location for something
> (that by definition is variable) in a place that by definition (or by
> de-facto consent) must be mountable read-only and have no ill effects on
> the rest of the machine.

and you can mount /usr readonly. 
You can not update /usr/portage - but so what? You can't install anything with 
/usr being ro anyway. So the last argument is the weakest.
Tradition is a much better reason to keep things the same. You need someone to 
make the change. Which is more than just move /usr/portage to /var or wherever 
you want it to be (and first: get consent about where to put it). No, you have 
to update documentation, make sure that there are not old, broken tools and 
apps that won't get confused etc pp.
As long as nobody steps up to do it - why even bother? Most people don't care 
about it. Those who do can set PORTDIR wherever they want and can live happily 
ever after.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Sergei Trofimovich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 434 bytes --]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:43:11 +0100
Cedric Sodhi <manday@gmx.net> wrote:

> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.

Hi Cedric!

Why gentoo-user@ ? Choosing (and changing) reasonable defaults is up to
developer. You could add gentoo-dev@ to CC to get technical answers.
Opening bugzilla entry might also help to get an attention.

-- 

  Sergei

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Dale]

Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> You know... I appreciate all your helpful "if you want to move portage
> to /var you can do it by..." 'suggestions', but, can you imagine the
> following situation:
>
> You push a change to a repository, on your way to work you realize that
> there was an error in the commit so as soon as you get to work you send
> out an email to everyone "Please do not pull until today evening when I
> have reverted that". And when you're back home and check the status you
> see that about everyone who could possibly have read you mail pulled
> from the repo.
>
>
> A parabel for the technically affine...
>
>    

If you mean someone syncs against your system, I don't see how it would 
matter as to whether portages tree is in /usr or anywhere else.  When 
you move the tree, change the config to point to the new location.

My point was, if you don't like it where it is, you can move it and it 
is easily done.  Having the devs change where it is, that is not so easy 
because that would force a lot, I mean a lot, of people to change their 
setup.  I would be one of those people.  I have portage on a separate 
partition.  If it get moved to another directory, I got to change the 
partition mount point.

It may seem like a simple change but it is not so simple when you 
realize what all it could break.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Hilco Wijbenga]

On 5 February 2011 16:15, Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:43:11 +0100
> Cedric Sodhi <manday@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
>> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.
>
> Hi Cedric!
>
> Why gentoo-user@ ? Choosing (and changing) reasonable defaults is up to
> developer. You could add gentoo-dev@ to CC to get technical answers.
> Opening bugzilla entry might also help to get an attention.

He already did. He was told to ask here. :-)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351463 (WONTFIX)

And there are several others asking for the same/similar changes. All
the way back to 2004, AFAICT.

I can understand that we don't want to automatically change everyone's
installed Gentoo from /usr/portage to /var/portage but why not try to
get new installs set up properly? Then perhaps an explanation on how
existing installs could be migrated for those wanting to do so?

It would seem that all that's required is:
1) add an explicit PORTDIR=/usr/portage to /etc/make.conf for existing
installs (unless PORTDIR is already specified, of course);
2) change the default.

Is it really more complicated than that?

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Sergei Trofimovich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 806 bytes --]

> He already did. He was told to ask here. :-)
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351463 (WONTFIX)

Ah, I see. So, gentoo-dev@ is the way to go :]

> I can understand that we don't want to automatically change everyone's
> installed Gentoo from /usr/portage to /var/portage but why not try to
> get new installs set up properly? Then perhaps an explanation on how
> existing installs could be migrated for those wanting to do so?
> 
> It would seem that all that's required is:
> 1) add an explicit PORTDIR=/usr/portage to /etc/make.conf for existing
> installs (unless PORTDIR is already specified, of course);
> 2) change the default.
> 
> Is it really more complicated than that?

I guess sending proposal with patches to gentoo-dev@ would speed things a bit.

-- 

  Sergei

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Dale]

Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>> He already did. He was told to ask here. :-)
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351463 (WONTFIX)
>>      
> Ah, I see. So, gentoo-dev@ is the way to go :]
>
>    
>> I can understand that we don't want to automatically change everyone's
>> installed Gentoo from /usr/portage to /var/portage but why not try to
>> get new installs set up properly? Then perhaps an explanation on how
>> existing installs could be migrated for those wanting to do so?
>>
>> It would seem that all that's required is:
>> 1) add an explicit PORTDIR=/usr/portage to /etc/make.conf for existing
>> installs (unless PORTDIR is already specified, of course);
>> 2) change the default.
>>
>> Is it really more complicated than that?
>>      
> I guess sending proposal with patches to gentoo-dev@ would speed things a bit.
>
>    

The devs have discussed this several times before.  I seriously doubt 
this will be changed since it would have been easier to have done it a 
long time ago.  You know, back when there was a lot fewer people running 
Gentoo.  Of course, it will be harder a few years from now too but I 
still don't see them changing this.  They have had several chances to 
and have not done so.

I do agree it should be moved, I just don't see it happening. If it was 
up for a vote, I'd vote to move it and at that point, I could adjust my 
partitions to reflect the change.  I sure wouldn't want to be on the 
planning team for this tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Cedric Sodhi]

On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:49:30AM +0200, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> > He already did. He was told to ask here. :-)
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351463 (WONTFIX)
> 
> Ah, I see. So, gentoo-dev@ is the way to go :]
> 
> > I can understand that we don't want to automatically change everyone's
> > installed Gentoo from /usr/portage to /var/portage but why not try to
> > get new installs set up properly? Then perhaps an explanation on how
> > existing installs could be migrated for those wanting to do so?
> > 
> > It would seem that all that's required is:
> > 1) add an explicit PORTDIR=/usr/portage to /etc/make.conf for existing
> > installs (unless PORTDIR is already specified, of course);
> > 2) change the default.
> > 
> > Is it really more complicated than that?
> 
> I guess sending proposal with patches to gentoo-dev@ would speed things a bit.
> 

Sending proposals with patches are likely to be equally ignored and
opposed as it is already the fact on this list.

So far, those who propose *not* to change it have quite exactly matched
my expectations:

a) Faulty reasoning, short sighted at times, or at least failed to draw a
connection between their alleged "argument" and the issue in question.
b) Irrational path of thought.

Let me sum up the few s.c. counter arguments we have obtained thus far. I
omit the arguments pro the change since they should be most obvious by
now.

Irrelevant arguments

* It is tradition, hence it should be kept
* You can always change it

Wrong reasoning:

* If it would be changed today, we would break the systems of those who
did not specify
=> Nonsense in two regards:
1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new directory,
 the old tree would rot in /usr
2. Since when are changes the very reason for NOT to change something.
That's ridiculous. Ever heard of etc-update, post-install-hooks etc?
The update to portage could simply relocate the tree.

* If it would be changed today, applications that unconditionally rely
on the portage tree to be there will break
=> Those applications do already break today if one changes the location
manually. Which means they are broken already and portage should not be
held responsible for catering to a broken application

If I missed anything that had at least attempted to appeal to logic,
please feel free to add it.

Given the reluctance and ignorance we are faced with on gentoo-user@ I
have little hope that gentoo-dev@ will be any better, considering that
it have been the responsible devs who have proven ignorant and illogical
in the past.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1088 bytes --]

>
> Tradition is a much better reason to keep things the same. You need someone
> to
> make the change. Which is more than just move /usr/portage to /var or
> wherever
> you want it to be (and first: get consent about where to put it). No, you
> have
> to update documentation, make sure that there are not old, broken tools and
> apps that won't get confused etc pp.
> As long as nobody steps up to do it - why even bother? Most people don't
> care
> about it. Those who do can set PORTDIR wherever they want and can live
> happily
> ever after.
>
>
All questions that involve limited resources should take into account the
consequence of the diversion of those resources.

No doubt the devs have a priority list of stuff to do. Remember that if they
were to focus on this issue, that means there would be something else that
they're not doing. So, given that the change is non-trivial for the reasons
Volker lists, is this the best way to utilise their limited resources? I
dont have an option either way due to my ignorance on the subject, but lets
keep in mind the full consequences.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1305 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 682 bytes --]

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.

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.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

And then Adam said, "What's a headache?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Cedric Sodhi]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Cedric Sodhi]

I'd like to apologize for my last mail, it looks like I've credited you
with the wrong arguments. Latter argument, that the developers have
bigger issues at hand, has been made by another contributor, not the one
to whom I replied.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Arttu V.]

On 2/5/11, Cedric Sodhi <manday@gmx.net> wrote:
> There are several reasons why portage, neither the tree nor (especially
> not) the distfiles should reside in /usr.

You should note that the "portage" part is wrong as well. The path
should be something like /var/db/gentoo-official-tree or some such to
absolve the historical package manager dependence evident in the name.
The dependency on a single PM has been gone for a long time now.

Also, while we're at it, the locally installed packages' directory
(/var/db/pkg) isn't too informative as a name, and should also be
renamed, e.g., into /var/db/gentoo-installed-pkgs.

IIRC this or some part of this made it all the way up to the Gentoo
Council some years ago as it was related to Some Big & Important
Things about next version of PMS and package managers' behaviour.

I'm too lazy to pick through the Councils' notes and logs and devlist
archives to check if my memory serves me right and/or what the
resolution was. But some educated guesses could be made on the basis
of the fact that the tree still sits at /usr/portage.

I'm not holding my breath while waiting for these cosmetic changes.

-- 
Arttu V.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Sunday 06 February 2011 12:53:20 Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> 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.

If done simultaneously, it should work, yes....

> Patches have always required reviewing by the user through etc-update.

Not patches, but changes to the configuration....
Usually, however, people choose to ignore the update as they don't want to go 
back to the "default" settings.

> 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.

Wrong.
When doing a "emerge -vauDN world" and a new portage is included, it will 
restart the emerge after portage is updated.
At this point, make.conf will NOT have had the update as specified in your step 
2 and will then proceed with the "new" default.
This new default is empty and as such, the emerge-update will fail.
How many people will then post on this list and file bug-reports based on a, in 
their view, broken portage?

> 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.

Your choice not to accept this argument doesn't help either.
There are a limited amount of developers and these have a limited amount of 
time.
I don't know how many are actually employed by Gentoo, but I do believe that 
the vast majority is doing the work in their free time.

> 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.

The responses in this thread are roughly of the following types:
1) "I don't care"
2) "Yes, it's wrong, but I don't bother changing it"
3) "Yes, it's wrong and I fixed it myself by changing the default"

Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone actually said they want to keep the 
situation as it is because they are against changing it.

> > 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.

I agree with this.
To make a change like this, it would need to be done over a longer period with 
the following stages:
1) Change the documentation to add changing the default in "make.conf"
2) Change the "make.conf.example" to list the new default
3) Change the "make.conf" with the portage-package to the new default
4) Change portage to default to the new default

Steps 1-3 can be done nearly simultaneously. (But will require time)
Step 4 will have to wait till the vast majority has been informed.

The most work will not be with the "code" (2-4), but will be with the 
documentation.
Any howto/document/guide/.... on the internet currently mentions 
"/usr/portage/..." for the tree. All these would also need to be updated to at 
least mention the new default alongside the current one.

To give an indication on the amount of references to "/usr/portage", enter 
that into your favourite search engine.
Google gives over 300,000 hits just now.

That, to me, does not seem like a "simple" task and it won't be a "minor" 
issue to fix.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2287 bytes --]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:53:20 +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.

So now you've added another step not previously mentioned, but one that
just happens to answer the point I made? Your previous 1 statement is
now no longer true, portage would not resync to a new directory, and the
old one in /usr would continue to be used, only new installs would be
affected.


> 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.

My argument? Please quote my statement to that effect?

> 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.

I mentioned one drawback to your previous proposal, that you now claim is
wrong only because you changed your proposal to contradict your
previous post. Your powers of extrapolation far outweigh mine and I give
way to your superior "reasoning".
  
> > 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.  
> 

I see you chose to not comment on this, even though you quoted it? 

Did it not fit in with your trolling?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[William Kenworthy]

On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 20:21 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> where do the bsds put their ports?
> 
> also: just set the PORTDIR variable wherever you want it to point. There is no 
> reason to annoy the rest of humanity with a mailing list point complaining 
> about a perceived problem that is none.
> 

Actually, its been a good while since the last flamewar stirred things
up - thats a reason :)

Yes I agree thats its probably not the best place for it, but moving it
is so low a priority for the distro as a whole is not worth bothering
with.

and as has been said, if its annoying you, move it or deal with it.  Let
the rest of us go back to sleep ....

BillK



-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
Home in Perth!

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Peter Humphrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 287 bytes --]

On Sunday 06 February 2011 20:03:13 Cedric Sodhi wrote:

> please [...] keep it short, logical, and remain on topic if you have
> any further points to add.

Remind me - what was the topic, again? Was there ever any point to it?

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2119 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2645 bytes --]

On Sunday 06 February 2011 20:03:13 Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 05:54:19PM +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:53:20 +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.
> > 
> > So now you've added another step not previously mentioned, but one that
> > just happens to answer the point I made? Your previous 1 statement is
> > now no longer true, portage would not resync to a new directory, and the
> > old one in /usr would continue to be used, only new installs would be
> > affected.
> 
> Correct.

It think this proposal (to only change portage for new installs) is eminently 
doable, with enough early e-warnings about it and changes in docs.  It could 
be introduced with a change in the make.profile and require explicit user 
intervention.  I'd vote for it - if anyone is counting.


> > > 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.

I don't think Neil's is being pharisaic in his statement.  Some machines may 
need repartitioning to make portage fit in /var.  I've got at least one old 
box where this would apply and will want to keep portage in /usr until I have 
time to shift things around.  It's not as simple as e.g. recreating your 
xorg.conf to get yout X back, or disabling hal to find your mouse again.

Without adequate early warnings and suitable advice a good number of users 
will complain that their machines are borked and blame the devs.  That's why 
I'm suggesting that manual intervention should work as a check that the user 
knows what their doing.

Packages that barf if /usr/portage is changed (don't know of any) will need to 
be managed via bug reports, or hopefully their devs will be clued enough to 
head this off at the pass.

Anyway, just my 2c's.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 854 bytes --]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 19:55:37 +0000, Mick wrote:

> It think this proposal (to only change portage for new installs) is
> eminently doable, with enough early e-warnings about it and changes in
> docs.  It could be introduced with a change in the make.profile and
> require explicit user intervention.  I'd vote for it - if anyone is
> counting.

Changing it in a new profile makes a great deal of sense. It won't affect
existing users unless they switch profiles, and the inclusion and
consequences of the new profile could be put in a news message.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I have seen things you lusers would not believe.
I've seen Sun monitors on fire off the side of the multimedia lab.
I've seen NTU lights glitter in the dark near the Mail Gate.
All these things will be lost in time, like the root partition last
week. Time to die.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage is misplaced in /usr

[Mark Shields]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1564 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>wrote:

> Apparently, though unproven, at 00:23 on Sunday 06 February 2011, Mark
> Shields
> did opine thusly:
>
> > > It's just plain outright stupid to have a default location for
> something
> > > (that
> > > by definition is variable) in a place that by definition (or by
> de-facto
> > > consent) must be mountable read-only and have no ill effects on the
> rest
> > > of the machine.
> > >
> > > --
> > > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
> >
> > Just put portage on it's own partition (LVM) and be done with it.
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I cannot believe that you actually typed that, you know better.
>
> But my eyes don't lie.
>
> So. Someone comes along with a valid beef about a default. This default can
> be
> changed, this is Gentoo. Ye gods, we change shit around here at the drop of
> a
> hat for no good reason sometimes. And your answer is to install LVM with
> it's
> deps, re-organize the disk, learn how to use lvm (not everyone knows the
> product or uses it) then go through the pain of moving stuff which not all
> users know how to do.
>
> All to get around a silly ancient default that long ago failed the "most
> useful to most people" test.
>
> You want to re-think your answer maybe?
>
>
> --
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
>
>
No, I don't.  Why are you so combative/easily threatened?

My suggestion was a valid one, for those already using LVM -- I've used LVM
to do RAID1 with several servers, and always put it on it's own LVM
partition.

The dead horse is dead.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2185 bytes --]