| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:16:25PM -0700, Nathan wrote: |
| 2 |
> > What's being worked on is a prototype- the prototype will be useful on |
| 3 |
> > it's own, but the main point of it is demonstrating that it's doable |
| 4 |
> > and the pros/cons of it. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Please keep this in mind. Bit of a reality check (kito and I are |
| 7 |
> > operating under this)- comments of the sort "when portage supports |
| 8 |
> > prefix "... |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Portage will only mainline support PREFIX if devs agree to the underlying |
| 11 |
> > ebuild changes. So... help make it clean, but be aware of the rules being |
| 12 |
> > operated under please. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Very good to know, especieally as I was one of those assuming it was a |
| 15 |
> "when" and not an "if." Do the 'rules being operated under' consist |
| 16 |
> of what you mentioned above (i.e. prefixed installs are a one-off |
| 17 |
> prototype unless/until everyone accepts it), or is there more to it |
| 18 |
> than that? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Nope, that's pretty much it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
PREFIX is a potentially large set of tweaks to the ebuild env |
| 23 |
requirements, some of the changes being a bit intricate- while it's |
| 24 |
not hard to make portage do said tweaks, those changes won't be |
| 25 |
mainlined in portage without gentoo devs agreeing to it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Basically... I can't just mandate "y'all are now going to support |
| 28 |
this"- I could try it, but I also probably would lose a knee cap or |
| 29 |
two from the ensuing beat down. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Prototype work pretty much comes down to stepping up and taking a |
| 32 |
serious thwack at this thing so that a decision can be reached, rather |
| 33 |
then sitting back and making zero progress towards it arguing over it. |
| 34 |
:) |
| 35 |
~harring |
Archives