On 10/01/2011 11:27 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> 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.

Well, it wouldn't apply to portageq's envvar command, since that doesn't
have a <root> argument. These are the portageq commands that would be
affected:

   all_best_visible <root>
   best_version <root> <category/package>
   best_visible <root> [pkgtype] <atom>
   contents <root> <category/package>
   expand_virtual <root> <atom>
   filter_protected <root>
   get_repo_path <root> <repo_id>+
   get_repos <root>
   has_version <root> <category/package>
   is_protected <root> <filename>
   list_preserved_libs <root>
   mass_best_version <root> [<category/package>]+
   mass_best_visible <root> [<category/package>]+
   match <root> <atom>
   metadata <root> <pkgtype> <category/package> [<key>]+
   owners <root> [<filename>]+

-- 
Thanks,
Zac