Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Markus Duft <mduft@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] portage prefix chaining support
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:38:43
Message-Id: 1238744219.9245.48.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] portage prefix chaining support by Markus Duft
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 09:04 +0200, Markus Duft wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 22:22 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > [snip]
> > > > Now your chaining patches. > > > > Apparently you take the total opposite direction now, where you first > > have a Portage in EPREFIX (how you got it is questionable), and within > > this Portage you expect it to take stuff it works with (bash, sed) from > > a different location, let's call it CPREFIX.
another thing i'd like to propose. prefix-chaining does not change the behaviour of anything as long as no READONLY_EPREFIX is set in make.conf. i'm taking much care not to break things by accidently taking executables for example from / or from somewhere they might be broken. this is true for all of portage/baselayout/etc. (i think i manage to do it right ;)), but aparently not for the ebuilds. in some places i simply put a type -P instead of EPREFIX/... as you said, this is wrong. so i'd like to do something like the portage function i added yesterday: a function that does this (pseudocode): find_in_eprefix_or_ro_root(path) { if -x $EPREFIX/$path return $EPREFIX/$path for root in readonly_roots { if allows_DEPEND($root) && -x $root/$path return $root/$path } return $EPREFIX/$path } i'd like to add this to prefix.eclass. this does not change the behaviour of an evuild if there is no readonly root set, but makes it work if there is... ideas? Cheers, Markus [snip]
> Cheers, Markus > > > > > > >