Re: [gentoo-alt] Names of Prefix variants

[Fabian Groffen]

On 26-10-2013 10:13:29 +0200, Ruud Koolen wrote:
> On Saturday 26 October 2013 09:41:28 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > As you may or may not know, the prefix USE-flag is a hack that works in
> > Portage, but violates specifications, because it is never defined in
> > ebuilds that need it.  Discussions here go back to not wanting to show
> > elibc_XXX, kernel_XXX in IUSE (because user can't influence them) and
> > prefix likewise.  We should still solve this problem.  While we're at
> > it, I'd like to tackle bug #473598 [1] at the same time.
>
> Not so! Any USE flags that are globally masked or forced are in the
> implicit-iuse list. Or is that what you meant as the hack? I think it's
> specified somewhere.

Last thing I understood, forcing it -- making it global -- is a Portage
behaviour, eapi-5 introduced some variable to define it or so.  So maybe
my entire comment is moot considering we aim for >=eapi-5.

> > Anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of using USE_EXPAND.
> > There's also a USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN, and something like this [2] looks
> > good.
>
> USE_EXPAND is fine too, it's just a special case of a USE flag, after all. It
> is perhaps more elegant than plain USE flags, and my plan was based on
> kernel_* and friends anyway.
>
> > In other words, I could think of having EPREFIX="$classic" or
> > EPREFIX_TARGET="$rap", which could default to $classic in
> > base/make.defaults.
>
> It should default to "" in base/make.defaults. Only the prefix profiles should
> set it to anything nonempty.

Have given this some thoughts, and maybe we need the global switch
whether or not prefix is enabled, and an additional features list to
select the variant of prefix (rap in this case).  Maybe that's complete
overkill, and your variant's nicer.  Anyway, a migration path or
backwards compatability is also important since use prefix is widely
adopted in gx86 nowadays...

Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level