1 |
It might be a good place to dump convenience functions related to the |
2 |
privileged prefix install stuff that I'm working on as well. |
3 |
|
4 |
I use eprefixify a lot to install launchd plist files on OSX, and |
5 |
having had to search for it to find out how it worked, it would |
6 |
probably be easier for most to have it in eclass. |
7 |
|
8 |
My 2¢, |
9 |
__armando aka fafhrd |
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
13 |
> Sort of responding to/being inspired by haubi's comment on -dev about |
14 |
> "inherit eapi 4", I wondered whether we should make a prefix.eclass. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Currently we have eprefixify as function provided by Portage, and hence |
17 |
> ebuilds that use eprefixify cannot be straight ported to gentoo-x86. |
18 |
> Most notable are the eselect-* ebuilds that some gentoo-x86 devs like to |
19 |
> give full Prefix support, but simply can't because eprefixify (which we |
20 |
> would use) cannot be used in gentoo-x86. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> So, should we start an eclass with for now eprefixify in there, and for |
23 |
> every ebuild where we use it, start inheriting prefix and nuke the |
24 |
> function from Portage? Somehow I think this is a good idea. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Since I like haubi's idea about inherit doing the magic for eapis, |
27 |
> perhaps this can even solve the problem we have with our EAPI mungling |
28 |
> (all our ebuilds just inherit eapi prefix to "tag" them) and all |
29 |
> eclasses (it remains a hell of a job to keep it working), as well as |
30 |
> having prefix ebuilds live happily next to non-prefix ones. But for |
31 |
> that we really need Portage to be able to mask based on what's in the |
32 |
> inherit line, e.g. the resolver needs to take it into account. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> |
35 |
> -- |
36 |
> Fabian Groffen |
37 |
> Gentoo on a different level |
38 |
> |
39 |
> |