On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:56:53AM +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:31:49 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote: > > > 1. With a sudden change portage would simply resync to a new directory, > > the old tree would rot in /usr > > And people would hit problems because /var bas filled up! I'm not saying > the current default is right, it's not, but you are over-simplifying the > work involved in making a change.
I disagree. You are overcomplifying it instead. The proposed patch would involve exactly: 1.) Change the default (the value that is used if no explicit value is given) 2.) etc-update make.conf to explicitly specify the old location as the desired value. Period. Patches have always required reviewing by the user through etc-update. Your attempts to argue that patching portage with that simple change would introduce problems of unpreceeded magnitude are pharisaic. It's the same though significantly simpler as other updates to whatever package you like. Your argument that the developers should not be bothered with minor issues such as this one because they have bigger issues is the trillionth logical fallacy in this thread. I'm honestly tired of it and I will not counter argue this because the wrongness of your reasoning should be trivial to spot with at least a minimum of thought. Hint: We (users & developers) have to first reach the decision that it *should* be changed. We haven't even reach that point and are crawling through a mud of ignorance instead. > > Actually, the way to make the change is not to change the default, yet, > but to change the default make.conf for new installs, and the > accompanying documentation. That way existing systems are unaffected, > which is how it should be with a change of default.
