1 |
On 11-03-2009 12:20:58 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 18:08 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
3 |
> > On 10-03-2009 17:34:45 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
4 |
> > > On 10-03-2009 17:17:00 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
5 |
> > > > Maybe indeed you're right, eprefixify is just an utility to help fixing |
6 |
> > > > package's code and should not be part of an EAPI. |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > I think I'll draft up a proposal tonight. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Please review my first shot at prefix.eclass |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Hmm, 'use' in global scope? |
13 |
|
14 |
use prefix will generate some QA warning to say the least, as non-Prefix |
15 |
portage doesn't know about it. |
16 |
|
17 |
> Eventually, when one of EPREFIX/EROOT/ED is *unset*, set all of them, |
18 |
> because we for sure do not have prefix-portage then, user might have set |
19 |
> one of them by hand - somehow like: |
20 |
> |
21 |
> if [[ ${EPREFIX+yes}${EROOT+we}${ED+can} != "yeswecan" ]]; then |
22 |
> export EPREFIX="" |
23 |
> export EROOT=${ROOT} |
24 |
> export ED=${D} |
25 |
> fi |
26 |
|
27 |
Good suggestion, feel free to check it in. |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Fabian Groffen |
32 |
Gentoo on a different level |