Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
| Navigation: |
|
Lists:
gentoo-alt:
< Prev
By Thread
Next >
< Prev
By Date
Next >
|
| Headers: |
|
To:
|
gentoo-alt@g.o
|
|
From:
|
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: RFC: changing sys-apps/portage python API to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db and similar map objects
|
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Oct 2011 20:27:44 +0200
|
|
Hi Zac,
On 01-10-2011 10:34:02 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> As I integrate prefix support into mainline portage, I think it will
Cool! and Thanks!
> make more sense to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db
> and similar map objects. This will also affect the portageq commands
> which take a <root> parameter. The reason that I think $EROOT makes more
> sense for these keys is that it will allow for multiple prefixes to
> exist simultaneously in maps like portage.db.
>
> This won't affect non-prefix users, since $EROOT == $ROOT when $EPREFIX
> is empty. So, I'm asking here because if might affect prefix users who
> use portageq, or any programs installed in a prefix that use the
> sys-apps/portage python API. If necessary, I suppose that python
> programs could have some compatibility code which checks whether or no
> $EROOT is contained in portage.db, and fall back to "/" otherwise.
What does it actually mean? Does one have to use
portageq envvar CHOST $EPREFIX/
instead when this is implemented?
That would seem not correct to me.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
|
|
