| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:16:44PM -0800, m h wrote: |
| 2 |
> Kito- |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Are you leveraging the work done by Haubi documented here: |
| 5 |
> http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_prefixed_portage_%28in_development%29 |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yah, although differs in certain respects; |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
1) affix doesn't exist |
| 10 |
2) bound to a temp EAPI to use for masking non prefix capable ebuilds |
| 11 |
3) Strict paths. *really* strict. |
| 12 |
4) by hand reimplementation of the python side of the modifications |
| 13 |
5) stable based. the patch referenced is 2.1; I (mostly by hand I'm |
| 14 |
afraid) backported the relevant chunks, rewriting what was needed and |
| 15 |
simplifying it down a bit (affix removal fex). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There is common code between them, but right now the prefix patch I've |
| 18 |
been splitting off of 2.0.51-rc4 is the simple cousin of haubi's work, |
| 19 |
round two basically, with a lot of patch monkeying via kito/myself to |
| 20 |
iron the beast out. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Just wondering because I've been able to use this to get portage |
| 23 |
> installed on a FC4 system (I know it's not OSX). But another user has |
| 24 |
> been able to use this to install over 200 packages on an AIX system. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Should be usable in both cases. Literally, the prefix stable patch is |
| 27 |
chunks of my 2.1 work and haubi's work torn out and integrated into 2.0 |
| 28 |
for prototype demonstration. Exempting the AFFIX difference, should |
| 29 |
work in a similar fashion across systems, although haubi's stage0 work |
| 30 |
is a seperate thing. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
~harring |
Archives