1 |
Hi Zac, |
2 |
|
3 |
On 01-10-2011 10:34:02 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
4 |
> As I integrate prefix support into mainline portage, I think it will |
5 |
|
6 |
Cool! and Thanks! |
7 |
|
8 |
> make more sense to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db |
9 |
> and similar map objects. This will also affect the portageq commands |
10 |
> which take a <root> parameter. The reason that I think $EROOT makes more |
11 |
> sense for these keys is that it will allow for multiple prefixes to |
12 |
> exist simultaneously in maps like portage.db. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> This won't affect non-prefix users, since $EROOT == $ROOT when $EPREFIX |
15 |
> is empty. So, I'm asking here because if might affect prefix users who |
16 |
> use portageq, or any programs installed in a prefix that use the |
17 |
> sys-apps/portage python API. If necessary, I suppose that python |
18 |
> programs could have some compatibility code which checks whether or no |
19 |
> $EROOT is contained in portage.db, and fall back to "/" otherwise. |
20 |
|
21 |
What does it actually mean? Does one have to use |
22 |
portageq envvar CHOST $EPREFIX/ |
23 |
instead when this is implemented? |
24 |
That would seem not correct to me. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Fabian Groffen |
29 |
Gentoo on a different level |