Re: [gentoo-alt] Re: cmake eclass fix

[Alan Hourihane]

On 10/06/11 10:29, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On 10/06/11 10:15, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> On 10/06/2011 12:33 AM, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>>> On 10/05/11 22:39, Jonathan Callen wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2011 03:01 PM, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>>>>> On 10/04/11 11:24, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/04/11 11:21, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/14/11 19:05, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/14/11 11:40, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07-07-2011 15:42:40 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can someone replace the link the cmake eclass that says
>>>>>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if use prefix; then
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if use prefix && ! EPREFIX=; then
>>>>>> if use prefix && "${EPREFIX}" != ""; then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above is better. Can this be committed ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually this works for me.....
>>>>> if use prefix && ! ${EPREFIX}; then
>>>> I hope you meant:
>>>>
>>>> if use prefix && ! [[ ${EPREFIX} ]]; then
>> Reading the different variants (without reading the cmake.eclass),
>> these variants do give different results.
>>
>> Probably, you do want to fire that 'if' when "EPREFIX is not empty", right?
> Right.
>
>> Actually, the last one (as reported in [1]) does fire "when EPREFIX is empty".
>>
>> So you probably want:
>>
>> - if use prefix; then
>> + if use prefix && [[ ${EPREFIX} ]]; then
>>
>> So - have you actually tried your reported variant?
> It originally started out with
>
> if use prefix && ! $EPREFIX=; then
>
> which seemed to do the trick, but obviously hadn't tested it.

Meant to say, obviously hadn't tested the later variants.

Alan.