Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 18-10-2009 14:31:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 18-10-2009 13:57:10 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> You know i am totaly supporting prefix but i have one point.
>>> Why on earth portage simply does not detect the prefix enviroment is being run 
>>> and then INTERNALY switch D->ED and other variables. It would be much easier 
>>> that way to migrate all stuff in portage instead of doing this || shebang. 
>>> Mostly when it is done by eclasses its quite cool, but when you get into 
>>> changing lots of ebuilds its quite hard for maintaining.
>>>
>>> Even the multilib overlay guys rather modify the portage than changing a load 
>>> of ebuilds.
>> Of course we would like to do that, but that was rejected for EAPI=3, so
>> it will at least take until EAPI=4 is implemented, which is not the
>> forseeable future, given that EAPI=3 isn't a fact yet either.
> 
> I was just informed that it is also a possibility to do an EAPI bump
> just for these variables, which would mean we can avoid replicating
> setting ED and EROOT in ebuilds.
> 

It's possible.

> The suggestion was to just introduce EAPI=3 with these variables, and
> making everything which is scheduled for current EAPI=3 just EAPI=4.  I
> was told we could quite quickly have a Portage in the tree that would
> set ED and EROOT for EAPI=3 that way.
> 

Maybe 2+prefix is a more describing name? This would avoid changing what
EAPI 3 means.

> Are there any objections to this?  If not, I'd like to put this on the
> agenda for the next council meeting.
> 

As the council decided to add new stuff in the last meeting if zac is
starting to implement new EAPIs this could go into EAPI 3 too.

Regards,
Petteri