| 1 |
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 09:19 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08-10-2008 09:12:06 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Eventually we could have portage-trunk containing prefix-support, with |
| 5 |
> > some "--enable-prefix-support" if even necessary, to have only one |
| 6 |
> > portage codebase for main- and prefix-tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The prefix branch is already "backwards" compatible with normal Portage. |
| 9 |
> I tested it on a normal Gentoo Linux install once. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Fine - just wanted to have this being said again ;) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > Before we can get full prefix-aware ebuilds into main-tree, we need to |
| 14 |
> > get the next EAPI (3?) defined, where EPREFIX/EROOT/ED are exported, and |
| 15 |
> > what should happen to the KEYWORDs. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Yes. But the Portage guys don't like to push in our work before it's |
| 18 |
> accepted by the community (e.g. proper consensus discussion on -dev). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ah - so we need to get acceptance on something like this one on -dev? |
| 21 |
<> |
| 22 |
We want to have Prefix support in portage: |
| 23 |
Normal usage in main Gentoo Linux will continue to work. |
| 24 |
It is a different question if Prefix-bits (profiles, keywords, |
| 25 |
ebuild-/eclass-changes, ...) go into the main tree, although this is our |
| 26 |
vision. This vision also includes "You won't need to support/fix Prefix |
| 27 |
bits, just accept and keep them over revbumps like you do for different |
| 28 |
archs." |
| 29 |
We won't support flame wars. |
| 30 |
</> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
/haubi/ |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Michael Haubenwallner |
| 35 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives