Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] prefix chaining
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:43:24
Message-Id: 20090325104316.GG12431@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-alt] prefix chaining by Markus Duft
1 On 25-03-2009 10:43:51 +0100, Markus Duft wrote:
2 > Hi!
3 >
4 > i'm done working on my prefix-chaining project for now. i have
5 > (attached) patches ready for commit (and 2 new packages, but that should
6 > not matter to anyone anyway :))
7 >
8 > the one is a newer version of the portage patch i submitted lately, and
9 > the other one patches baselayout, so that prefix chaining can work.
10 >
11 > for all these things i can say: they won't hurt anybody, as long as
12 > there is no READONLY_EROOT set in make.conf, which should not be the
13 > case ;) that's the trigger that activates all changes.
14
15 I think READONLY_EROOT is a bad name/starting point. To make this
16 "feature" generic you should go from READONLY_ROOT I guess. But I don't
17 see what ROOT has to do with Prefix chaining anyway. From what you
18 wrote before it seems like you run stuff from READONLY_EROOT, which is
19 usually impossible/hard with ROOT != /
20
21 > if there is no READONLY_EROOT, behaviour of all parts of portage and
22 > baselayout should be exactly the same.
23 >
24 > ok to commit? maybe we could think about checking the portage patch into
25 > the prefix-portage svn tree?
26
27 Yes, but as I have indicated before, I like to understand what problem
28 we're actually trying to solve here. And more importantly, I'd like to
29 introduce this stuff in trunk instead of prefix if it is of generic use.
30 But I really can't tell for the moment.
31
32 > since i haven't commented on the baselayout patch yet, i'll do it here
33 > (the portage patch is basically the same as the one i submitted lately,
34 > with small improvements):
35 >
36 > etc/env.d/00basic:
37 > * added EPREFIX variable, since if the currently used portage
38 > instance comes from a chained prefix, portage needs to be
39 > explicitly informed of the EPREFIX. this should not disturb
40 > anybody, since it can be overridden after starting the prefix
41 > again...
42
43 This is bad, and I would call it a blocker.
44
45 > etc/profile:
46 > * the profile now sources all profiles (recursively) of all
47 > parent prefixes in the chain.
48 > * if we are in a chained environment, some variables need
49 > speacial treatment, since i want some of the chained envs to
50 > be there in the current prefix. (PATH, MANPATH and in some
51 > cases PKG_CONFIG_PATH. others may come...)
52 > * if we are in a chained environment, don't append /usr/.. and
53 > /... paths to PATH, unless we're the top level prefix in the
54 > chain (which behaves the same as if there where no chain).
55
56 why?
57
58 > * the last hunk is for correctly setting the chained variables
59 > which i listed above (PATH, MANPATH, etc.).
60
61 > If nobody has objections, i'll commit. i'll wait a few hours before
62 > committing.
63
64 I don't feel good about this, and I think it will break.
65
66
67 --
68 Fabian Groffen
69 Gentoo on a different level

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-alt] prefix chaining Markus Duft <mduft@g.o>