1 |
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 09:19 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> On 08-10-2008 09:12:06 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > Eventually we could have portage-trunk containing prefix-support, with |
5 |
> > some "--enable-prefix-support" if even necessary, to have only one |
6 |
> > portage codebase for main- and prefix-tree. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> The prefix branch is already "backwards" compatible with normal Portage. |
9 |
> I tested it on a normal Gentoo Linux install once. |
10 |
|
11 |
Fine - just wanted to have this being said again ;) |
12 |
|
13 |
> > Before we can get full prefix-aware ebuilds into main-tree, we need to |
14 |
> > get the next EAPI (3?) defined, where EPREFIX/EROOT/ED are exported, and |
15 |
> > what should happen to the KEYWORDs. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Yes. But the Portage guys don't like to push in our work before it's |
18 |
> accepted by the community (e.g. proper consensus discussion on -dev). |
19 |
|
20 |
Ah - so we need to get acceptance on something like this one on -dev? |
21 |
<> |
22 |
We want to have Prefix support in portage: |
23 |
Normal usage in main Gentoo Linux will continue to work. |
24 |
It is a different question if Prefix-bits (profiles, keywords, |
25 |
ebuild-/eclass-changes, ...) go into the main tree, although this is our |
26 |
vision. This vision also includes "You won't need to support/fix Prefix |
27 |
bits, just accept and keep them over revbumps like you do for different |
28 |
archs." |
29 |
We won't support flame wars. |
30 |
</> |
31 |
|
32 |
/haubi/ |
33 |
-- |
34 |
Michael Haubenwallner |
35 |
Gentoo on a different level |