Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Markus Duft <mduft@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: RE: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] creating a prefix.eclass?
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:41:26
Message-Id: 011301c9a163$d514bc70$7f3e3550$@org
In Reply to: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] creating a prefix.eclass? by Fabian Groffen
> > Sort of responding to/being inspired by haubi's comment on -dev about > "inherit eapi 4", I wondered whether we should make a prefix.eclass. > > Currently we have eprefixify as function provided by Portage, and hence > ebuilds that use eprefixify cannot be straight ported to gentoo-x86. > Most notable are the eselect-* ebuilds that some gentoo-x86 devs like > to > give full Prefix support, but simply can't because eprefixify (which we > would use) cannot be used in gentoo-x86. > > So, should we start an eclass with for now eprefixify in there, and for > every ebuild where we use it, start inheriting prefix and nuke the > function from Portage? Somehow I think this is a good idea.
Hmm, sounds like a good idea. This would indeed solve some of the posed problems.
> > Since I like haubi's idea about inherit doing the magic for eapis, > perhaps this can even solve the problem we have with our EAPI mungling > (all our ebuilds just inherit eapi prefix to "tag" them) and all > eclasses (it remains a hell of a job to keep it working), as well as > having prefix ebuilds live happily next to non-prefix ones. But for > that we really need Portage to be able to mask based on what's in the > inherit line, e.g. the resolver needs to take it into account. >
I believe this can be done without too much effort, although I'm not sure if this can be considered "clean". OTOH, why not? This would enable users to express things like: "I want live ebuilds, but none that come from svn" (and thus inherit subversion.eclass). Cheers, Markus
> > -- > Fabian Groffen > Gentoo on a different level