El sáb, 31-03-2012 a las 08:44 +0000, Sven Vermeulen escribió: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06:18AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Looks then that there are several alternatives for portage tree, then, > > maybe the option would be to add a note to Gentoo Handbook explaining > > the cons of having portage tree on a standard partition and, then, put a > > link to a wiki page (for example) where all this alternatives are > > explained. > > > > What do you think about this approach? > > I don't like the "cons" approach, as it gives the impression that users are > pushed into a negative solution, whereas the current situation works just > fine for almost all users. The approach for a different partition is for > performance reasons (which most users don't have any negative feelings > about) and as such might be read as a "ricer" approach. > > But perhaps it would be more "lean" to just start with a wiki page (or > document) for alternative / better partitioning layouts, and when that has > stabilized then we can talk about Handbook integration, not? > > Wkr, > Sven Vermeulen > >
Current solution works but causes a really slow portage tree when ages passes (I still have a machine with tree in / and is really really slow but, since it's used by my father at his job, I am unable to solve it :( ). And not, I don't think it's a ricer approach at all, it's for performance and for save a lot of disk space too. About the wiki page, I can only document reiserfs+tail usage as it's the one I use and I know, about other alternatives like using squashfs, loop mount... I cannot promise anything as I simply don't know how to set them.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
