On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:35:41 -0700 Raymond Jennings <shent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:49:37 -0700 > > Raymond Jennings <shent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In that case, I vote for /var/cache/portage, since that's > > > literally what purpose it serves. Namely, the cache of the > > > gentoo infra's current copy of teh portage tree. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Raymond Jennings > > > > <shent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Just for the record, but would putting a setting inside > > > >> /etc/portage/make.conf be the appropriate way to handle this? > > > >> > > > > > > > > The settings already exist (and have existed for 10 years.) This > > > > bikeshed discussion is literally trying to decide what the > > > > default should be. > > > > > > > > -A > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a personal attack against you. Just picked this one to > > say something again... > > > > > > PLEASE, PLEASE stop calling it the "portage" tree. The repo name is > > "gentoo". "portage is the default package manager, but not the only > > choice. Far too often, it takes awhile to figure out what someone > > is trying to say because of that confusion between the tree and the > > package manager. > > Point of order: > > http://distfiles.gentoo.org/snapshots and numerous pieces of > documentation call it "portage" > > The confusion is ingrained by documentation. > Yes, it is, and well we can't very well change the documentation until we can get an end to this new default path bikeshed. Council will need to make the decision (soon I hope)... Then we make all the changes necessary. -- Brian Dolbec <dolsen>
