On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:19:52 -0800 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 02:01 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:56:44 +0100 > > Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: > > > >> Just mv /usr/portage /var/portage ? FFS no. Among other things, as > >> many said before, we should really take distfiles out of the tree > >> itself, and packages the same. And I don't want /var/packages > >> or /var/distfiles at all. > > > > If we are going to move distfiles out of the tree into, what are the > > odds of getting /some/path/portage/local to move somewhere else too? > > What program uses this "local" directory? It's not used directly by > portage itself, though portage has an exclude for it in the default > PORTAGE_RSYNC_OPTS setting > (in /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals). It goes back a long time, and is basically a poor man's local overlay without having to use layman. As I understand it, portage will treat the directory like any other when looking for ebuilds and resolving deps, but exclude it from a sync. > > > That one has irked me for ages, its the one thing left on my systems > > that stops the local tree dir being an exact replica of the upstream > > master. > > For portage's defaults, I won't settle for anything less than having > them all refer to separate directories which are *not* nested within > one other. These are the current default settings which violate my > requirements: > > PORTDIR=/usr/portage > DISTDIR=${PORTDIR}/distfiles > PKGDIR=${PORTDIR}/packages > RPMDIR=${PORTDIR}/rpm /usr/portage/local has the taste feel and smell of a hacky workaround: shove a directory in the tree and exclude it from sync. I suspect the best solution all round is to move all support for local overlays into layman. I'd be happy with that. Probably make the portage code cleaner too. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com