1 |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:40:53 -0500 |
2 |
"Jeremy Olexa" <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> In a way I feel like we (the Prefix project) are mis-using the EAPI |
4 |
> value. |
5 |
|
6 |
You're misusing it in the way you treat it as a set of strings rather |
7 |
than a single value. But this being an EAPI thing seems right. |
8 |
|
9 |
> If we have something that is designed to work with *any* EAPI, |
10 |
> is it really a special EAPI? haubi said something on the gentoo-alt |
11 |
> list that made me think about this more: |
12 |
> "When an usecase of something is orthogonal to what that thing is |
13 |
> designed for, one should consider using a different thing for this |
14 |
> usecase." -source unknown |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Is this PROPERTIES-like information? Is that easily supportable in |
17 |
> the PM? |
18 |
|
19 |
I don't see it as orthogonal. |
20 |
|
21 |
Here's the thing: you can't use prefix ebuilds in a non-prefix-aware |
22 |
package manager because things like ED will be unset. If prefix ebuilds |
23 |
could work (as in, install unprefixed) in a purely vanilla package |
24 |
manager with no prefix awareness, it could be done using PROPERTIES or |
25 |
some similar variable. But prefix won't work at all unless its |
26 |
extensions are present, and it also appears to require changes to |
27 |
things that are defined differently in different EAPIs. |
28 |
|
29 |
I suspect most of the problem is down to timescale. The prefix |
30 |
development time is spread out over three EAPIs so far, so you need |
31 |
three sets of (mostly similar) extensions. Had prefix taken less time |
32 |
to be worked out, it'd fairly clearly be something that could just go |
33 |
straight in to the next EAPI, with duplicated base system packages in |
34 |
an overlay to avoid having to use new EAPIs for core things in the |
35 |
main tree. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Ciaran McCreesh |