Bikeshed: Moving around the var/db/pkg hierarchy

[Nikolay Pavlov]

On Sunday, 10 June 2007 at  0:07:02 -0400, Andrew Lankford wrote:
> Just wondering, but what are the reasons for putting port building options and package system meta data in the /var slice?  Maybe I'm just not the sort of FreeBSD user who would 
> see a need to reserve a gigabyte or more for the /var partition, but /var/db/pkg keeps getting larger over successive upgrades even though the rest of /var really doesn't 
> (assuming that programs don't dump all sorts of unclaimed rubbish in /var/tmp).  Why not place ports/package info in the same part of the tree where package files typically go, 
> /usr/local?
> 
> Andrew Lankford
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-arch at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

This is because on the large environments the ports tree is usually
mounted from the NFS repository on every other server. The much better
question is why portupgrade is using /usr/ports directory by default.

 #   ENV['PORTSDIR'] ||= '/usr/ports'
  #   ENV['PORTS_INDEX'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR'] + '/INDEX'
  #   ENV['PORTS_DBDIR'] ||= ENV['PORTSDIR']
  #   ENV['PKG_DBDIR'] ||= '/var/db/pkg'

I think the more consistent way is 
ENV['PORTS_DBDIR'] ||= '/var/db/ports'

However this is just IMHO.
 

-- 
======================================================================  
- Best regards, Nikolay Pavlov. <<<-----------------------------------    
======================================================================