Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] About gentoo-x86 and us

[Markus Duft]

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:10 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:32 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 06-07-2009 11:14:07 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:02 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to merge our portage changes back to
> > > > > > trunk and get a prefix aware portage released officially before we worry
> > > > > > about merging individual packages/eclasses?
> > >
> > > > Is there anyone going to help me out with this?
> > >
> > > How comfortable are portage-dev's with prefix branch already?
> >
> > not?
> >
> > I could easily generate the latest diff for us to review though before
> > we kick (parts of it) to them.
> >
> >
>
> one other thing: if i have a completely new package (regarding bug
> 250843; i have prepared the interix-6 specific fork library), should i
> add this to the prefix svn or the gx86 cvs? how will it be synced to the
> prefix rsync then?
>
> this brings me to another idea regarding synching: why not skim through
> the gx86 tree, and sync any package containing any of the prefix
> keywords only? this way, gx86-only packages wouldn't end up in the
> prefix rsync tree (so much for the multi-thousand package problem)...
>
> may i also suggest to somehow review/incorporate the cross-prefix stuff

oups. haubi pointed out that i prbably meant the prefix-chaining i built
more recently - which is different from cross-prefix... :)

Cheers, Markus

> in that portage? i know it's low priority, but if prefix portage is in
> main, it would _really_ make sense to be able and bootstrap a prefix on
> top of gentoo main in less than a minute (just emerge baselayout,
> portage and two small helper packages).
>
> if it doesn't make it into portage, i'll be happy continuing patch
> maintainance anyway - just a thought ;)
>
> cheers, Markus
>
>