Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
Fabio Rossi wrote: I'm proposing to reorganize the files related to Gentoo inside /var/lib. Currently we have this situation (at least on my system): /var/lib/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/herdstat/ /var/lib/module-rebuild /var/lib/portage The main dir should be something like /var/lib/gentoo, so I'd see all gentoo-related files as /var/lib/gentoo/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/gentoo/herdstat/ /var/lib/gentoo/module-rebuild /var/lib/gentoo/portage What do you think about? Looks quite wrong. I'd do /var/lib/gentoo/enews - /var/lib/enews btw lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Fabio Rossi wrote: I'm proposing to reorganize the files related to Gentoo inside /var/lib. Currently we have this situation (at least on my system): /var/lib/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/herdstat/ /var/lib/module-rebuild /var/lib/portage The main dir should be something like /var/lib/gentoo, so I'd see all gentoo-related files as /var/lib/gentoo/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/gentoo/herdstat/ /var/lib/gentoo/module-rebuild /var/lib/gentoo/portage What do you think about? Looks quite wrong. I'd do /var/lib/gentoo/enews - /var/lib/enews btw A few things, mostly relating to trying to convince me to fix this (being open source, you could easily fix it yourself). 1) There is no right or wrong place to put data, specifically if we state that we do not follow standards (like the FHS) that may in fact make specific recommendations, and we have done so in the past. 2) There is not a real problem (technically) with the current placement, aside from some people think it is odd. I am unaware of users that are trying to put /var/lib/ on an NFS mount but can't because of our scheme; or other ideas for which the current scheme limits users. 3) Moving is costly. - We have to author code to migrate existing news repositories - We have to author code to check both places (at a minimum, to migrate the old repository, possibly at runtime, or to warn them of the old repository) - How long will this code remain in the codebase (forever?) 4) The benefits are slim. - /var/lib is more orderly for a subset of users. - What else? The point is we make decisions all the time and some of them are bad and are expensive to fix and we have to live with them. The location was actually specified in the GLEP[1] so part of me asks why this was not brought up then (it was a design defect; and not an implementation defect). Data from software engineers tends to show that defects in the design phase that are caught in the maintenance phase tend to be very expensive to fix and I think there are bigger fish to fry in the package manager world; but feel free to send a patch as always (this is OSS after all). [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0042.html#client-side lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 17:28:09 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:21:45 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 16:57:12 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Gentoo does not comply with the FHS. It was established a long time ago that FHS is considered silly and any compliance is merely because the FHS people somehow managed to avoid screwing that particular area up. Well, we're not here to deliberate about people's taste in FHS silliness manner. FHS, being standard de-facto, following the definition of the word standard as something accepted by majority and thus promised to be respected. Not justified standard violations or justified by I don't like it or It's silly should be repressed and some good standards should be explicitly forced in my opinion. Otherwise, inconsistency will create the feel of mess. I believe we can agree on this. You could use the same argument to say Gentoo must switch to RPM because LSB says so. No, I would be invalid argumentation - I know it - you know it, so let's not continue with discussion of this kind until one side will EOT seeing it's pointless, while the other side will secretly announce epic victory ;) It's not the point to blindly follow freedesktop or LSB - the point is to consistently follow one standard across whole distribution - if it's FHS - fine, if not - fine as well - but *only one* at a time. That being said I'd rather propose to force Gentoo news to comply to FHS as FHS is the most commonly used file/directory layout in Gentoo. cheers in new year -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:55:13 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: That being said I'd rather propose to force Gentoo news to comply to FHS as FHS is the most commonly used file/directory layout in Gentoo. No, FHS is not the most commonly used layout. The traditional Unix layout is the most commonly used layout. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
Maciej Mrozowski wrote: On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 17:28:09 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: You could use the same argument to say Gentoo must switch to RPM because LSB says so. No, I would be invalid argumentation - I know it - you know it, so let's not continue with discussion of this kind until one side will EOT seeing it's pointless, while the other side will secretly announce epic victory ;) I actually agreed with Ciaran on this point. especially seeing I would like us to follow the parts of LSB that make sense within the Gentoo ecosystem. (take Init Script Actions as an possible example http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html). It's not the point to blindly follow freedesktop or LSB - the point is to consistently follow one standard across whole distribution - if it's FHS - fine, if not - fine as well - but *only one* at a time. That being said I'd rather propose to force Gentoo news to comply to FHS as FHS is the most commonly used file/directory layout in Gentoo. This really is bikeshedding.. Isn't consistently following a standard also blindly following it. So when you ask us to consistently follow FHS why not ask for us to blindly follow it. Man this is getting boring. cheers in new year
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Thursday 01 of January 2009 22:03:55 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No, FHS is not the most commonly used layout. The traditional Unix layout is the most commonly used layout. So.. why not blindly use Unix layout everywhere instead (for Gentoo news as well) On Thursday 01 of January 2009 22:37:28 Alistair Bush wrote: I actually agreed with Ciaran on this point. especially seeing I would like us to follow the parts of LSB that make sense within the Gentoo ecosystem. (take Init Script Actions as an possible example http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-ge neric/iniscrptact.html). So, you agree with Mr Ciaran on that FHS is silly or on blindly following *every* LSB standard being silly? Great, but I wasn't suggesting any of this, I just suggested to pick any standard (most commonly used in Gentoo already), and *only one* and blindly follow it to avoid inconsistency. In such scenario, please elaborate what is your point really. It's not the point to blindly follow freedesktop or LSB - the point is to consistently follow one standard across whole distribution - if it's FHS - fine, if not - fine as well - but *only one* at a time. That being said I'd rather propose to force Gentoo news to comply to FHS as FHS is the most commonly used file/directory layout in Gentoo. This really is bikeshedding.. Isn't consistently following a standard also blindly following it. So when you ask us to consistently follow FHS why not ask for us to blindly follow it. Man this is getting boring. Yes, you're right. Let everyone follow his own standards - everyone likes spaghetti afterall... (just look at eclasses/ebuilds in you're uncertain) No, it's not bikeshedding, it's misunderstanding the sentence. Consistently following *some* standard is blindly following *the same* standard, but consistently following *some standard* is *not* blindly following LSB nor is blindly following FHS. See the difference? So to make it all clear once again and for the last time - I would rather propose to force Gentoo news to comply to existing the most commonly used file/directory hierarchy structure in Gentoo distribution. cheers -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 23:07:08 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: On Thursday 01 of January 2009 22:03:55 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: No, FHS is not the most commonly used layout. The traditional Unix layout is the most commonly used layout. So.. why not blindly use Unix layout everywhere instead (for Gentoo news as well) We do. So to make it all clear once again and for the last time - I would rather propose to force Gentoo news to comply to existing the most commonly used file/directory hierarchy structure in Gentoo distribution. It already does. Seriously, find something useful to change. I realise it's hard around here to get anything major done, but all going around trying to change the colour of the door handle on the bikeshed does is make life harder for those people who are doing something useful. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Thursday 01 of January 2009 23:15:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 23:07:08 +0100 So.. why not blindly use Unix layout everywhere instead (for Gentoo news as well) We do. /var/lib/gentoo/news Seriously, find something useful to change. I realise it's hard around here to get anything major done, but all going around trying to change the colour of the door handle on the bikeshed does is make life harder for those people who are doing something useful. I'm just commenting on someone's thread and giving counter proposal. And at least I'm not derivating the topic to non-topic specific areas and I'm not polluting mailing list with general non meritorical ideas as some are, am I? cheers EOT -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 23:28:52 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: On Thursday 01 of January 2009 23:15:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 23:07:08 +0100 So.. why not blindly use Unix layout everywhere instead (for Gentoo news as well) We do. /var/lib/gentoo/news ...is perfectly fine, sensible, consistent and does not need repainting bright green, especially when such a paint job would take six months to dry. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: Any reason for that? Aesthetics aren't a very compelling argument IMO, and the FHS also seems to favor the current layout (in my interpretation at least, as we're not really talking about inter-related applications in technical terms). I agree with you, there is no technical relation, i.e. those applications are stand-alone, but I also think that the link is their role, they are all used for administrative purposes *inside* a Gentoo distribution (inside might be the right keyword to justify a little deviation from the FHS). In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't see a reason to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something like /var/lib/gentoo-news. Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Philip Webb wrote: /var/lib/eselect -- here /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/herdstat/ /var/lib/module-rebuild -- here /var/lib/portage -- here It looks neater simpler to understand in the long run, provided it doesn't break anyone's system in the short run. BTW I have only the 3 entries I have marked above. gentoo/news comes along with portage 2.1.6.x, herdstat could be deleted as suggested by Duncan. Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:55:39 +0100 Fabio Rossi ross...@inwind.it wrote: On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: Any reason for that? Aesthetics aren't a very compelling argument IMO, and the FHS also seems to favor the current layout (in my interpretation at least, as we're not really talking about inter-related applications in technical terms). I agree with you, there is no technical relation, i.e. those applications are stand-alone, but I also think that the link is their role, they are all used for administrative purposes *inside* a Gentoo distribution (inside might be the right keyword to justify a little deviation from the FHS). The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp, /var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used on other distributions/systems, should they then use another path? Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things? Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you work in PR/marketing ;) In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't see a reason to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something like /var/lib/gentoo-news. Right. But retroactively changing GLEP 42 and all affected packages is a bit much just to avoid a generic gentoo directory. Marius
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp, /var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used on other distributions/systems, should they then use another path? The path could be configured of course but, again, I see a few chances of having this tools outside gentoo, the proposal is based also on this idea. Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things? Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you work in PR/marketing ;) The main benefit is a cleaner filesystem, I don't know your opinion but I hate to see sparse files around the tree and waste time in discovering their source :-) Moreover IMHO it gives me the impression of a better design. In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't see a reason to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something like /var/lib/gentoo-news. Right. But retroactively changing GLEP 42 and all affected packages is a bit much just to avoid a generic gentoo directory. So we can exploit this condition to collect all gentoo related files inside this dir ;-) Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:00:35 +0100 Fabio Rossi ross...@inwind.it wrote: On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp, /var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used on other distributions/systems, should they then use another path? The path could be configured of course but, again, I see a few chances of having this tools outside gentoo, the proposal is based also on this idea. Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things? Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you work in PR/marketing ;) The main benefit is a cleaner filesystem, I don't know your opinion but I hate to see sparse files around the tree and waste time in discovering their source :-) Moreover IMHO it gives me the impression of a better design. Ok, so in other word aesthetics. In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't see a reason to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something like /var/lib/gentoo-news. Right. But retroactively changing GLEP 42 and all affected packages is a bit much just to avoid a generic gentoo directory. So we can exploit this condition to collect all gentoo related files inside this dir ;-) Well, the impact is about the same wether you want to change one or the other (btw, what about other admin tools on Gentoo, e.g. paludis/pkgcore, by your definition they'd also have to go into /var/lib/gentoo, right?), and that impact is non-trivial (it's not so much the code changes themselves but the inevitable transition problems). Compared to the IMO very questionable benefit of a cleaner filesystem (by hiding files users usually don't see anyway one level deeper in the tree structure) that more or less goes against the FHS, that doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Marius
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: Well, the impact is about the same wether you want to change one or the other (btw, what about other admin tools on Gentoo, e.g. paludis/pkgcore, by your definition they'd also have to go into /var/lib/gentoo, right?) Yes. So you don't think that a /var/lib/distribution_name directory makes sense for collecting all admin files *strictly* related to the distribution, do you? If portage/paludis/pkgcore were used in other distributions I'd not consider their files related to the admin purposes of one specific distrib, at that point their files could be directly put inside /var/lib. and that impact is non-trivial (it's not so much the code changes themselves but the inevitable transition problems). This might be the real issue, the transition problems generated by the move. Compared to the IMO very questionable benefit of a cleaner filesystem (by hiding files users usually don't see anyway one level deeper in the tree structure) that more or less goes against the FHS, that doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Ok, but at the end we have an exception in the tree (/var/lib/gentoo/news/) which is not justified (looking at the current discussion). My proposal has arisen after having seen the /var/lib/gentoo/news/ hierarchy. Regards, Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
El mié, 31-12-2008 a las 15:33 +0100, Fabio Rossi escribió: On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: Well, the impact is about the same wether you want to change one or the other (btw, what about other admin tools on Gentoo, e.g. paludis/pkgcore, by your definition they'd also have to go into /var/lib/gentoo, right?) Yes. So you don't think that a /var/lib/distribution_name directory makes sense for collecting all admin files *strictly* related to the distribution, do you? If portage/paludis/pkgcore were used in other distributions I'd not consider their files related to the admin purposes of one specific distrib, at that point their files could be directly put inside /var/lib. They are used in other distributions. Paludis is the default package manager on Exherbo. Also, think about all Gentoo derivatives like Sabayon. Regards, -- Santiago Moisés Mola Jabber: cooldw...@gmail.com | GPG: AAD203B5 signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:00:35PM +0100, Fabio Rossi wrote: On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp, /var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used on other distributions/systems, should they then use another path? The path could be configured of course but, again, I see a few chances of having this tools outside gentoo, the proposal is based also on this idea. Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things? Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you work in PR/marketing ;) The main benefit is a cleaner filesystem, I don't know your opinion but I hate to see sparse files around the tree and waste time in discovering their source :-) Moreover IMHO it gives me the impression of a better design. I'm the first to admit I'm an organization/directory junkie, but have learned that 'cleaner' is certainly in the eye of the beholder. What I see as disorganized chaos a flat-filer sees as visibility heaven. This has nothing to do with good design (although you would and I used to argue that) and everything to do with personal taste. It could even be argued that the proposal is poor design, forcing Gentoo-specific programs to follow non-standards, discouraging them from ever integrating seamlessly with anything non-Gentoo. This is Gentoo's living room and it generally lives there alone. Don't force it into a small corner for no reason. --dc
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 15:33:14 Fabio Rossi wrote: Ok, but at the end we have an exception in the tree (/var/lib/gentoo/news/) which is not justified (looking at the current discussion). My proposal has arisen after having seen the /var/lib/gentoo/news/ hierarchy. Then it seems way more appropriate and easier to implement to force Gentoo news to comply to FHS and shot on sight those responsible for this mess :D -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:53:27 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 15:33:14 Fabio Rossi wrote: Ok, but at the end we have an exception in the tree (/var/lib/gentoo/news/) which is not justified (looking at the current discussion). My proposal has arisen after having seen the /var/lib/gentoo/news/ hierarchy. Then it seems way more appropriate and easier to implement to force Gentoo news to comply to FHS and shot on sight those responsible for this mess :D Gentoo does not comply with the FHS. It was established a long time ago that FHS is considered silly and any compliance is merely because the FHS people somehow managed to avoid screwing that particular area up. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 16:57:12 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Gentoo does not comply with the FHS. It was established a long time ago that FHS is considered silly and any compliance is merely because the FHS people somehow managed to avoid screwing that particular area up. Well, we're not here to deliberate about people's taste in FHS silliness manner. FHS, being standard de-facto, following the definition of the word standard as something accepted by majority and thus promised to be respected. Not justified standard violations or justified by I don't like it or It's silly should be repressed and some good standards should be explicitly forced in my opinion. Otherwise, inconsistency will create the feel of mess. I believe we can agree on this. -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:21:45 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 16:57:12 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Gentoo does not comply with the FHS. It was established a long time ago that FHS is considered silly and any compliance is merely because the FHS people somehow managed to avoid screwing that particular area up. Well, we're not here to deliberate about people's taste in FHS silliness manner. FHS, being standard de-facto, following the definition of the word standard as something accepted by majority and thus promised to be respected. Not justified standard violations or justified by I don't like it or It's silly should be repressed and some good standards should be explicitly forced in my opinion. Otherwise, inconsistency will create the feel of mess. I believe we can agree on this. You could use the same argument to say Gentoo must switch to RPM because LSB says so. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
I'm proposing to reorganize the files related to Gentoo inside /var/lib. Currently we have this situation (at least on my system): /var/lib/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/herdstat/ /var/lib/module-rebuild /var/lib/portage The main dir should be something like /var/lib/gentoo, so I'd see all gentoo-related files as /var/lib/gentoo/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/gentoo/herdstat/ /var/lib/gentoo/module-rebuild /var/lib/gentoo/portage What do you think about? Regards, Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:12:23 +0100 Fabio Rossi ross...@inwind.it wrote: I'm proposing to reorganize the files related to Gentoo inside /var/lib. Currently we have this situation (at least on my system): /var/lib/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/herdstat/ /var/lib/module-rebuild /var/lib/portage The main dir should be something like /var/lib/gentoo, so I'd see all gentoo-related files as /var/lib/gentoo/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/gentoo/herdstat/ /var/lib/gentoo/module-rebuild /var/lib/gentoo/portage What do you think about? Any reason for that? Aesthetics aren't a very compelling argument IMO, and the FHS also seems to favor the current layout (in my interpretation at least, as we're not really talking about inter-related applications in technical terms). Marius
RE: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
Hi, this possible reorganization will impact how many packages and which one ? Thanks :P Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:31:12 +0100 From: gen...@gentoo.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:12:23 +0100 Fabio Rossi ross...@inwind.it wrote: I'm proposing to reorganize the files related to Gentoo inside /var/lib. Currently we have this situation (at least on my system): /var/lib/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/herdstat/ /var/lib/module-rebuild /var/lib/portage The main dir should be something like /var/lib/gentoo, so I'd see all gentoo-related files as /var/lib/gentoo/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/gentoo/herdstat/ /var/lib/gentoo/module-rebuild /var/lib/gentoo/portage What do you think about? Any reason for that? Aesthetics aren't a very compelling argument IMO, and the FHS also seems to favor the current layout (in my interpretation at least, as we're not really talking about inter-related applications in technical terms). Marius _ Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/events.aspx
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
081231 Fabio Rossi wrote: I'm proposing to reorganize the files related to Gentoo inside /var/lib. Currently we have this situation (at least on my system): /var/lib/eselect -- here /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/herdstat/ /var/lib/module-rebuild -- here /var/lib/portage -- here The main dir should be something like /var/lib/gentoo , so I'd see all gentoo-related files as /var/lib/gentoo/eselect /var/lib/gentoo/enews /var/lib/gentoo/herdstat/ /var/lib/gentoo/module-rebuild /var/lib/gentoo/portage What do you think about? It looks neater simpler to understand in the long run, provided it doesn't break anyone's system in the short run. BTW I have only the 3 entries I have marked above. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
