| 1 |
On 08-10-2008 15:12:50 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 2 |
> <thoughts> |
| 3 |
> I'm unsure if stating the prefix-awareness in EAPI is right at all, as |
| 4 |
> it is orthogonal and works with any EAPI. |
| 5 |
> One could think of leaving this indicator to the KEYWORDS - and call |
| 6 |
> prefix an "arch" somehow: When an ebuild becomes keyworded XXX-YYYY, |
| 7 |
> then it is prefix-aware. |
| 8 |
> This implies that we keep the "XXX-linux" keyword[4.1]. |
| 9 |
> What to do then with current non-prefix XXX-fbsd keywords - don't know |
| 10 |
> anything about the activity of that archs. Eventually they could do the |
| 11 |
> same as what you did with XXX-macos. |
| 12 |
> Or we rename our keywords to "x86+linux", where "+" stands for "prefix"? |
| 13 |
> </thoughts> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
interesting, but I don't think misusing keywords for Prefix is good. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > [4] we extended to full XXX-YYYY for clarity, probably won't get the |
| 18 |
> > -YYYY part if "-linux", but we also added x64- for XXX-, which will |
| 19 |
> > introduce a big war (also sort of whatever, the keyword is the most |
| 20 |
> > important). Last point, the introduction of all of our keywords and |
| 21 |
> > profiles (quite some) and maybe ekeyword's sorting order. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> [4.1] I'm afraid we should not share the same keyword for both "Gentoo |
| 24 |
> Linux" and "Gentoo Prefix on any Linux" within the same tree, although |
| 25 |
> it's just a feeling ATM. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That's a good point. Gentoo Linux != Prefix Linux. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 32 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives