Welcome to CRUX bug tracking.

FS#136 - PKGMK_{PACKAGE,SOURCE}_DIR used by default

Attached to Project: CRUX
Opened by Anonymous Submitter - Thursday, 16 November 2006, 09:25 GMT
Task Type Improvement
Category ports → core/opt
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Operating System CRUX
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version Development
Due in Version 2.3
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No


As previously decided, CRUX 2.3 should use dedicated dirs for
sources and packages.

Now let\'s fight about our personal preferences :)
I use /usr/sources and /usr/packages to be consistent
with /usr/ports, many prefer some dir under /var
This task depends upon

Closed by  Simon Gloßner (Viper)
Tuesday, 20 February 2007, 19:51 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't fix
Comment by Mark Rosenstand (mark) - Friday, 17 November 2006, 06:54 GMT
I\'d opt for /usr/ports/distfiles and /usr/ports/packages for similarity with FreeBSD (where /usr/ports has its origin.)
Comment by Mykhailo Kolesnyk (mike_k) - Saturday, 18 November 2006, 15:16 GMT
So we\'ll have a mess like:
$ ls /usr/ports

Is it ok? Some utils (may) assume top level ports directory contains only repos themselves, no other dirs.

/usr/distfiles and /usr/packages is ok, but a dedicated pkgmk user can full the /usr partition (unless we create 2 more dedicated partitions). Drawbacks should be pointed out in handbook clearly.

Can we leave it as:
PKGMK_PACKAGE_DIR=<path/to/pkgmk/home/dir>/packages ?

It requires more editing during install =(
Comment by Antti Nykanen (aon) - Sunday, 19 November 2006, 17:25 GMT
Can\'t you set up a quota for your pkgmk user?

I prefer /usr/ports/{packages,distfiles} too.
Comment by Mykhailo Kolesnyk (mike_k) - Monday, 20 November 2006, 13:49 GMT
I can. But, do you think it\'s simple and can you really recommend that to crux users (in handbook)? Nevermind, everyone is free to make a choice.
Comment by Anonymous Submitter - Tuesday, 21 November 2006, 00:36 GMT
I agree with Mikhail regarding the use of dirs under /usr/ports: to me
having collections and sources at the same level sounds unnatural/confusing,
and makes scripting more annoying.
Comment by Simon Gloßner (Viper) - Saturday, 25 November 2006, 16:41 GMT
I support mark and aon\'s view: Putting the dirs \'packages\' and \'distfiles\' into \'/usr/ports\'.
Comment by Anton Vorontsov (cbou) - Sunday, 26 November 2006, 00:40 GMT
Please count my vote for:


Placing sources or packages to /usr seems as silly as /usr/www or /usr/ftp, though someone might like such setup, but it makes no sense for /usr :-/
Comment by Simon Gloßner (Viper) - Wednesday, 03 January 2007, 03:02 GMT
Well the directory ports is not available by the network. Putting it in a different directory than /usr doesn\'t make sens to me. :-)
Comment by Mykhailo Kolesnyk (mike_k) - Wednesday, 03 January 2007, 09:44 GMT
Well, too many points so far. A more democratic way would be setting up some kind of voting system on site/wiki and putting a link on #crux channel (too lame, but honest). But is it worth that? It\'s not hardcoded - just keep it relatively sane and nothing will stop user from changing it.

+ A note in handbook suggesting to make adjustment by hand would be nice.
Comment by Bart Kos (brointhemix) - Wednesday, 17 January 2007, 22:55 GMT
umm, could we leave the 2.2 default setting and let people chose their favourite place for the packages and sources directories?
...or I have another idea: toss the coin! :) if it\'s heads, put the dirs into /usr/ports/{packages,distfiles} - if it\'s tails , make it /var/ports/{packages,distfiles} (or whatever). I mean, everybody will end up editing the /etc/pkgmk.conf anyway, so why worry? ;)

I myself used the /usr/ports dir, now I\'m in /var/ports , therefore I vote for the /var/ports{packages,distfiles} option :).