| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2152
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:00 am Post subject: [workaround] how to move portage-related stuff? |
 |
|
Despite being somewhat chaotic in real life, I like my pc-stuff as organised as possible, mainly to be easily maintainable. So for me, the next step is bringing up a usefull (in my eyes) system for portage and the stuff related.
Currently, I've got a setup like this: | Code: |
/portage
/portage/binpkg
/portage/distfiles
/portage/overlay
/portage/tmp
/portage/tree |
I'd also like to have /etc/portage in /portage, BUT at best not via symlinks. Same goes for /var/cache/edb /var/lib/portage, etc. So, the question is, have I overread some variables I can define and if not, would this be acceptable to include in portage's features or am I supposed to hack portage's src or live with symlinks?
Last edited by avx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Veldrin
Veteran
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 1945
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can always use mount -o bind... I personally don't use it in the portage case, but I've heard from other gentoo users to do it exactly like this.
e.g.
| Code: | | # mount /portage/distfiles /usr/portage/disrfiles -o bind |
The Syntex is the same, as with mount i.e mount <device> <mount-point>.
cheers
V.
PS. ask, if I should elaborate more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
d2_racing
Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 13047
Location: Ste-Foy,Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In fact, I saw that one a couple of times actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Hunt
Watchman
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 5287
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But, just be careful that you don't hose your box next time you sync. Emerge --sync will completely overwrite your PORTDIR.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2152
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Veldrin, interesting idea, haven't thought of that, yet. Thanks. The "problem" I see with this would be, that `mount` could/would get somewhat messy and confusing.
@Mike Hunt, want do you mean? All ebuilds, etc are stored in /portage/tree/.
Last edited by avx on Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Hunt
Watchman
Joined: 19 Jul 2009
Posts: 5287
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ph030 wrote: | | @Mike Hunt, want do you mean? All ebuilds, etc are storen in /portage/tree/. |
Perhaps I misunderstood what you want to do. I thought you want to move all the portage related stuff into the root of your PORTDIR. my mistake.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2152
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No problem
Tested the `mount --bind`, technically works, but as told, `mount` is of course cluttered, so is /etc - guess I have to live with it. Marking as [workaround]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dreadlorde
Apprentice
Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 243
Location: /adm/timezone/US_Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have you looked at aufs2?
_________________
Ludwig von Mises Institute | Quote: | | I am not to be a shepherd, I am not to be a grave-digger. No longer will I speak to the people; for the last time I have spoken to the dead. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2152
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Does this build against 2.6.30.x now? Besides, where exactly do you see a benefit for using it in this case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yngwin
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Dec 2002
Posts: 4572
Location: Suzhou, China
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are some variables you can define. See man make.conf.
_________________
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2152
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yep, but not for /etc/portage which currently is my main concern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
i92guboj
Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 10315
Location: Córdoba (Spain)
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think you can change that without hacking into portage itself. These paths are the first thing you see on the emerge man page, and they appear as something that's hardcoded. However, what's the point? Don't misunderstand me, I am not going to fight over who's right here, I just feel curious, I will not argue just want to hear the reasoning behind it and after that I will not answer back (I don't want to spoil the thread more than necessary).
Following the same logic, nothing under /etc would make sense, we could also move the apache configs to /apache, and so on... /etc is for config files, that's why there's /etc/portage: config files for portage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2152
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | However, what's the point? |
1. it's all about choice[tm]
2. easier to deploy on a set of similar setups, i.e. no symlink+nfs-hell
3. all gentoo-relevant (or the most) gentoo-stuff in one single location, i.e. easy to turn $distro->gentoo/funtoo/...
4. no problems with i.e. backups caused by some files being on another partition
5. nearly everything else related to portage can be placed where you want it to be
6. easy to keep multiple portage's around
I'm sure there are even more things one can think of.
Edit
| Quote: | | following the same logic, nothing under /etc would make sense |
Well, there's some weird stuff in there, i.e. asound.state. Besides, imho /etc is a bad name anyway, something like /set(tings) would be more logical, imho, but that's another topic.
| Quote: | | /etc is for config files |
Well, if that's the case, why not do it right and have something like /etc/sys, /etc/root, /etc/$user? /etc/skel is imho not the right thing. XDG came up with ~/.config, ~/.cache, etc, but how many apps are using this? Not even GNOME/KDE make use of it, that's why we have at least dozens of files cluttering our ~/. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Portage & Programming
