On 7/13/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/07, Andrew Fyfe <andrew@neptune-one.net> wrote:
Dan McGee wrote:
On 6/4/07, Andrew Fyfe <andrew@neptune-one.net> wrote:
Default behaviour for 'pacman --root' pacman --root /foobar Root Dir : /foobar DB Path : /foobar/$localstatedir/lib/pacman Cache Dir : /foobar/$localstatedir/cache/pacman/pkg
Lock File : /foobar/$localstatedir/run/pacman.lck Cfg File : /foobar/$sysconfigdir/pacman.conf
This is a reply to the whole email, but I wanted to highlight stuff from above. This is no longer the case- I just eliminated this behavior. Every path is independent of the others. ROOTDIR is *completely* seperate now.
Sorry this is still bugging me, having to type 'pacman -r ... -b ... -c ...' is a pain in the ass. 99% of the time when I'm using 'pacman -r' I want the same fs layout with a different root dir prefix. Am I the only one that uses 'pacman -r' like this most of the time.
I actually might agree with Andrew here. Usually when I use -r, it's like "hey lets install bash in my homedir" or "lets make a chroot dir that I can use later". I want to use everything else the parent system has, as far as cache and configs go.
I dunno, what are all the use cases for using -r? Can someone list a use case where specifying all dirs is common?
Well my original thought was flexibility. Before you couldn't do some things that you can do now. Examples: 1. I want to build a chroot without doing crazy rsync/hardlinking of the pacman cache directory. 2. I want to make a more secure chroot. I don't want the pacman DB, cached packages, or the logfile in the actual chroot. And before I made all these changes, I found it odd that the logfile was always specified with an absolute path but nothing else was. To be honest, I'm not sure of all the use cases of --root. If anyone wants to chime in on this it would be appreciated. -Dan