On 20 December 2012 17:44, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Michael Mol wrote:
>
>>>>> /var/cache/portage/distfiles
>>>>> /var/cache/portage/repositories/gentoo
>>>>> /var/cache/portage/repositories/{sunrise,kde,gnome,whatever,layman,grabs}
>>>>> /var/db/portage/repositories/{non-cache,repo,names,go,here}
>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> The subdirs are too deeply nested. (Ebuilds would be at the eighth
>>> level then...)
>
>> Maybe I missed something...but what's wrong with that?
>
> There's no good reason for nesting it so deeply. As it is proposed
> above, /var/cache/portage would contain only two subdirectories, and
> /var/cache/portage/repositories only a single "gentoo" on a stable
> system. Also /var/cache itself isn't overpopulated; I count about ten
> entries on my systems.
>
> We should go with a shorter (easier to remember, easier to type) path
> and move things at least one level up. Two would be even better.
>
>>> Let's put the tree in /var/cache/portage please, and distfiles in
>>> /var/cache/distfiles. Layman overlays can stay where they are, or
>>> move to /var/cache/layman.
>
> Ulrich
>Yeah +1 to that. Makes more sense to me -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
