| 1 |
On 10/01/2011 10:34 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> As I integrate prefix support into mainline portage, I think it will |
| 5 |
> make more sense to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db |
| 6 |
> and similar map objects. This will also affect the portageq commands |
| 7 |
> which take a <root> parameter. The reason that I think $EROOT makes more |
| 8 |
> sense for these keys is that it will allow for multiple prefixes to |
| 9 |
> exist simultaneously in maps like portage.db. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> This won't affect non-prefix users, since $EROOT == $ROOT when $EPREFIX |
| 12 |
> is empty. So, I'm asking here because if might affect prefix users who |
| 13 |
> use portageq, or any programs installed in a prefix that use the |
| 14 |
> sys-apps/portage python API. If necessary, I suppose that python |
| 15 |
> programs could have some compatibility code which checks whether or no |
| 16 |
> $EROOT is contained in portage.db, and fall back to "/" otherwise. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Here's the commit to watch out for if/when it gets merged into the |
| 19 |
prefix branch: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=a715b65f7bd36409c1283e6911265d1f4405ab7a |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Zac |
Archives