| 1 |
On 23-07-2012 14:36:57 -0400, W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The tree is different, so while it sounds reasonable, in reality it is |
| 4 |
> > not. Sorry. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Ah, thanks for pointing that out. For some reason I thought that after |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 16:59:53 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 9 |
> > The (good) news for users is that all packages from regular Gentoo |
| 10 |
> > are now also available for Prefix albeit being masked by missing |
| 11 |
> > keywords. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It makes sense that the trees will be different until the EPREFIX |
| 14 |
> stuff gets pulled into the main tree though. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The profiles differ, and as Jeremy explained, most of @system packages |
| 17 |
are Prefix modified versions. See also: |
| 18 |
http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/alt/browser/trunk/prefix-overlay |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 01:11:50PM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 21 |
> > It is also worthwhile to note that the bootstrapping process WRITES to |
| 22 |
> > the tree location, thus your permission denied errors. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> But… |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 01:32:47PM -0400, W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 27 |
> > * Couldn't these profile overrides happen in |
| 28 |
> > "${EPREFIX}/etc/portage/profile" (see portage(5))? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
It does this ugly/nasty hack, because environment stuff needs to exist, |
| 31 |
uptil the point that you have a sane toolchain. That's about when you |
| 32 |
are instructed to run `emerge --sync`, which wipes out these |
| 33 |
modifications *on purpose*. The `emerge --sync` hence serves two |
| 34 |
reasons, skipping it, or doing it sooner guarantees some problems to |
| 35 |
occur. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 40 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives