Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] RFC: changing sys-apps/portage python API to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db and similar map objects
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 18:27:58
Message-Id: 20111001182744.GI704@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-alt] RFC: changing sys-apps/portage python API to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db and similar map objects by Zac Medico
Hi Zac,

On 01-10-2011 10:34:02 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> As I integrate prefix support into mainline portage, I think it will
Cool! and Thanks!
> make more sense to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db > and similar map objects. This will also affect the portageq commands > which take a <root> parameter. The reason that I think $EROOT makes more > sense for these keys is that it will allow for multiple prefixes to > exist simultaneously in maps like portage.db. > > This won't affect non-prefix users, since $EROOT == $ROOT when $EPREFIX > is empty. So, I'm asking here because if might affect prefix users who > use portageq, or any programs installed in a prefix that use the > sys-apps/portage python API. If necessary, I suppose that python > programs could have some compatibility code which checks whether or no > $EROOT is contained in portage.db, and fall back to "/" otherwise.
What does it actually mean? Does one have to use portageq envvar CHOST $EPREFIX/ instead when this is implemented? That would seem not correct to me. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies