1 |
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 15:16 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> On 08-10-2008 15:12:50 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
3 |
> > <thoughts> |
4 |
> > I'm unsure if stating the prefix-awareness in EAPI is right at all, as |
5 |
> > it is orthogonal and works with any EAPI. |
6 |
|
7 |
Someone said something like this, (just don't remember who): "When an |
8 |
usecase of something is orthogonal to what that thing is designed for, |
9 |
one should consider using a different thing for this usecase." |
10 |
|
11 |
> > One could think of leaving this indicator to the KEYWORDS - and call |
12 |
> > prefix an "arch" somehow: |
13 |
> > </thoughts> |
14 |
> |
15 |
> interesting, but I don't think misusing keywords for Prefix is good. |
16 |
|
17 |
I don't see the real misuse of keywords (yet?): |
18 |
|
19 |
Currently, keywords indicate: |
20 |
x86: "this runs on [x86] CPU with [Gentoo Linux] OS" |
21 |
x86-fbsd: "this runs on [x86] CPU with [FreeBSD] OS" |
22 |
|
23 |
They also could indicate: |
24 |
x86+macos: "this runs on [x86] CPU with [Gentoo Prefix on MacOSX] OS" |
25 |
|
26 |
If an ebuild only has keywords "x86" (like sys-kernel/*), then there's |
27 |
no need to respect ED,EPREFIX,EROOT. |
28 |
OTOH, if an ebuild does not respect ED,EPREFIX,EROOT, it cannot |
29 |
correctly get any Prefix keyword. |
30 |
|
31 |
EAPI="X+prefix" with Prefix keywords is redundant information, while |
32 |
EAPI="X+prefix" without Prefix keywords is useless (but possible), and |
33 |
EAPI="X" (no prefix) with Prefix keywords is a no-go. |
34 |
|
35 |
So Prefix-awareness IMO is more a KEYWORD-like information than an |
36 |
EAPI-like information, no? |
37 |
|
38 |
Or is it a PROPERTIES-like information (like zmedico's "set")? |
39 |
|
40 |
/haubi/ |
41 |
-- |
42 |
Michael Haubenwallner |
43 |
Gentoo on a different level |