| 1 |
On 13-10-2008 15:27:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:16:01 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Unless someone can say what using PROPERTIES=prefix would break, I'd |
| 5 |
> > go with that. It's a /classic/ usage of that variable, as it's simply |
| 6 |
> > a boolean; PROPERTIES is well-defined and I'm hoping all the manglers |
| 7 |
> > support it. It'd be great to see the prefix branch finally merged so |
| 8 |
> > we all get to play with it. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It would break. Prefix ebuilds won't work unless ED is set, and a non |
| 11 |
> PROPERTIES aware or non-prefix-property aware package manager won't set |
| 12 |
> ED. Unless prefix is reimplemented to require no package manager |
| 13 |
> changes for the install to / case, PROPERTIES is out. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Just to comment on this possibility; I see an option, given the |
| 16 |
definition of ED and EROOT to do Prefix without them, by e.g. using |
| 17 |
${D}${EPREFIX} instead of ${ED} as shorthand. When ${EPREFIX} would be |
| 18 |
unset, this would result in simple ${D}, which is "backwards |
| 19 |
compatible". This is not all what is necessary, but a big deal of it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Question here, however, is whether this is worth it. Personally, I |
| 22 |
prefer the shorthands, as they give a lot of readability. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 27 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives