Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-alt] Re: RFC: changing sys-apps/portage python API to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db and similar map objects
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:06:41
Message-Id: 4EA67C12.50001@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
On 10/01/2011 10:34 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> Hi, > > As I integrate prefix support into mainline portage, I think it will > 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.
Here's the commit to watch out for if/when it gets merged into the prefix branch: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=a715b65f7bd36409c1283e6911265d1f4405ab7a -- Thanks, Zac

Replies