HIER Convention: /usr This directory is usually mounted from a separate partition. It should hold only sharable, read-only data, so that it can be mounted by various machines running Linux. /var This directory contains files which may change in size, such as spool and log files. /var/lib Variable state information for programs. FHS Convention: /usr/ Secondary hierarchy for read-only user data; contains the majority of (multi-)user utilities and applications. /var/ Variable files—files whose content is expected to continually change during normal operation of the system—such as logs, spool files, and temporary e-mail files. Sometimes a separate partition. /var/cache/ Application cache data. Such data is locally generated as a result of time-consuming I/O or calculation. The application must be able to regenerate or restore the data. The cached files can be deleted without data loss /var/lib/ State information. Persistent data modified by programs as they run, e.g., databases, packaging system metadata, etc. By all classifications, /usr/portage should go in /var. By all classifications, it should NOT go in /usr /var is expected to be heavily written and read from, as it is the case with the portage tree. It's possibly subject to fragmentation and small file sizes and heavy changes, which is usually accounted for my choosing an appropriate filesystem and configuring it accordingly. /usr is expected to be a static directory with mostly read access and few to no changes on a running system. There are a lot of objective reasons against it being in /usr, in favor of putting it into /var, where it should be. There is not a single reason for it being in /usr. This is clearly a bug that needs fixing. And considering how misplaced a heavily accessed and written-to directory is in the static environment of /usr, one of major priority. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Sync portage 2. Observe it having fun with /usr Actual Results: Portage writes to /usr as if it were /var Expected Results: Portage writes to /var, as it is /var
"Gentoo does not consider the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard to be an authoritative standard, although much of our policy coincides with it." [1] [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/filesystem/index.html
(In reply to comment #1) > "Gentoo does not consider the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard to be an > authoritative standard, although much of our policy coincides with it." [1] > > [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/filesystem/index.html I did not cite the HIER to conclude that the portage tree should be moved because Gentoo complied to it. It supports my argument in so far, as that it is a reasonable standard which makes reasonable suggestions. Gentoo should be reasonable, hence taking HIER at least as a supporting argument is not wrong. The point that Gentoo does not explicitly comply to HIER, nor FHS, for that matter, does neither resolve, nor justify the actuall issue in question here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Sorry I just tried to be nice and point you to "something" instead of simply closing as wontfix. That won't happen again... Use PORTDIR="/var/whateveryoulike" in /etc/make.conf and please stop reopening this bug.
(In reply to comment #3) > Sorry I just tried to be nice and point you to "something" instead of simply > closing as wontfix. That won't happen again... > > Use PORTDIR="/var/whateveryoulike" in /etc/make.conf and please stop reopening > this bug. > Thank you for your, although misguided, attempt to be nice. I asssure you that this is not necessary, though. Please reply to the following question: What is Gentoo? a) Gentoo is a project where a few selected and important people (like you) make individual decisions that are unquestionedly taken as valid for the project, as per definitionem (althought not the same, but closely related because there is a major risk of it occurring, see A.f.A. [1]) b) Gentoo is a distribution which is driven by more than 300 developers and thousands of users [2] where a decision is evalued by at least many, based upon what is best for the whole project. If you claim that a) is the case, please cite your allegation with verified sources (preferably directly from the gentoo project). If, however, you agree that b) is the case, you should by now have arrived at the conclusion that your behaviour was inappropriate by yourself and that your second contribution to this thread (which is, closing it without reasoning) is again, invalid. If you fail to either 1.) reply at all 2.) justify your decision to close this although you agree that b) is the case or reply in a "I'm the boss here, what you say doesn't matter"-manner [3] within 12 hours, I'll reopen this bug, since there is thus no reason why your personal unjustified opinion should nullify this bug. Software Development, especially of a big project like this is no place for emotional "I don't want it. Period." arguments of a single individual like you, who happens to be either arrogant or in bad mood (for your case, I assume latter was the case). It is a process based upon rational and logical thought, of which you haven't provided any, yet. Thank you [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority [2] http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development
*sigh* setting aside validity of thing you propose, I've closed this bug because Bugzilla is not the place to report/demand these changes: 1) use mailing list, to ask dev and users alike what they think about your proposal, so next time we know that you represent the vote of majority 2) assigning this bug to someone would lead to situation (a) In the end it would be read by 3-4 more devs. Since I know them a little I can anticipate the bug resolution...
