mån 2010-01-18 klockan 12:40 +0100 skrev Michael Haubenwallner:
> Alex Alexander wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:05:58AM +0100, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote:
> >> I sometimes think the main problem is the tree itself. Portage really
> >> should had a directory of its own, but maybe with anoher structure,
> >> like /var/portage, /var/portage/tree (the current
> >> PORTDIR), /var/portage/distfiles (i.e. split out distfiles from the tree
> >> itself), /var/portage/overlays/layman or /var/portage/layman.
> >> I of course realize that change the structure of the whole portdir would
> >> had inresting complications, so take this comment just as serious as you
> >> like.
> <snip>
> > /var/portage/
> > /var/portage/tree
> > /var/portage/layman
> > /var/portage/overlays (non-layman managed, layman could also be in here)
> > /var/portage/distfiles
> > /var/portage/packages
>
> Not that I really care, but are these "portage-only" and we might need
> /var/{paludis,pkgcore,...}/*? So what about /var/gentoo/*?
>
> /haubi/
I think "gentoo" is too non-specific. "portage" is more or less a good
name for everything with regards to the package management in gentoo.
That there is a name collision between that and the default
implementation of a package manager I see just as an coincidence.
Just like Gentoo both can refer to a distribution and a file-browser.
Or RPM is both a file-format and a tool to handle said file format.
