| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:31:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:13:06 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> |
| 7 |
>>wrote: |
| 8 |
>>| A) would like to hear what you think is required planning wise |
| 9 |
>>| compared to the previous haubi prototype patch. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>>There has been no serious discussion on how *ebuilds* will use the |
| 12 |
>>prefix system. Hacking econf and expecting PREFIX to be sufficient is |
| 13 |
>>naive from a tree-perspective. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>econf isn't the only change required; the point is that whatever is |
| 18 |
>decided, would have to be added to econf thus covering a good chunk of |
| 19 |
>ebuilds in the tree that don't require fancy voodoo. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>The basic proposal of haubi's glep (ignoring the portage innard |
| 22 |
>modifications) came down to addition of a prefix var, that would be |
| 23 |
>required slipped in for any fs installation paths (--prefix=$PREFX |
| 24 |
>fex). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>Beyond that, there is the shebang issue which can be addresses via a |
| 27 |
>combination of automated scans/fixes, and fixing bugs as it's hit. |
| 28 |
>Hardcoded vars in scripts for the path to a binary are an issue also, |
| 29 |
>although again, scans can be done to at least check for it. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
>Leaves mangling the build process so that the build framework of the |
| 32 |
>package uses the prefix offset files, rather then / . For c/c++ |
| 33 |
>source, usual trick from fink afaik involves a mangling of cflags with |
| 34 |
>-I tacked in. Kinda ugly, although I'd expect there is a better |
| 35 |
>route. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
>Packages that pull include/compile settings/args from a utility |
| 38 |
>(thinking python configuration tools, and pkgconfig) shouldn't be too |
| 39 |
>horrid to change, since it's a matter of modifying it in one place |
| 40 |
>(theoretically :). |
| 41 |
>~harring |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
I guess in the end trying to do something like this is a difficult |
| 47 |
process. I am wary of anyone who wants to just jump into an application |
| 48 |
like portage and just magically write in this kind of support. In the |
| 49 |
end one could just try and go step by step, but nothing guarantee's you |
| 50 |
won't miss something, or because it works with packages x,y,z that it |
| 51 |
will work for all packages. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
If you have two weeks to do it in, I wish you the best of luck. Maybe |
| 54 |
you are good enough at learning portage internals to get it done, but |
| 55 |
even after portage support is done there are still plenty of other factors. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
In the end I side with Ciaran on this one. You need to know all the |
| 58 |
bases to cover here in order to make this work well. Going ahead with |
| 59 |
no plan is stupid IMHO. |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives