Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New keywords for non-Gentoo Linux platforms

[Michael Haubenwallner]

On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 19:59 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 13-10-2008 15:27:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:16:01 +0100
> > Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> > > Unless someone can say what using PROPERTIES=prefix would break, I'd
> > > go with that. It's a /classic/ usage of that variable, as it's simply
> > > a boolean; PROPERTIES is well-defined and I'm hoping all the manglers
> > > support it. It'd be great to see the prefix branch finally merged so
> > > we all get to play with it.
> >
> > It would break. Prefix ebuilds won't work unless ED is set, and a non
> > PROPERTIES aware or non-prefix-property aware package manager won't set
> > ED. Unless prefix is reimplemented to require no package manager
> > changes for the install to / case, PROPERTIES is out.
>
> Just to comment on this possibility; I see an option, given the
> definition of ED and EROOT to do Prefix without them, by e.g. using
> ${D}${EPREFIX} instead of ${ED} as shorthand.  When ${EPREFIX} would be
> unset, this would result in simple ${D}, which is "backwards
> compatible".  This is not all what is necessary, but a big deal of it.
>
> Question here, however, is whether this is worth it.  Personally, I
> prefer the shorthands, as they give a lot of readability.

Could it also work to initialize them in profile.bashrc if they are
unset?

Something like
        : ${EPREFIX=}
        : ${ED=${D}}
        : ${EROOT=${ROOT}}

/haubi/
-- 
Michael Haubenwallner
Gentoo on a different level