Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID...

[Brian Harring]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:07:32AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:01:34 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
> wrote:
> | What's being raised here is issues with making ebuilds handle prefix
> | _perfectly_.  Where are the portage issues, so that people can
> | actually jump in and start testing out actual solutions, rather then
> | conjecturing about what may or may not break?
>
> The issue is that you need to fix autoconf before you can claim that
> any non-trivial test case works correctly.

And how are you going to verify autoconf works perfectly without 
testing it?

The point I'm making is that the only thing required of *portage*, is 
the prefix var being used internally, and handed down to the ebuilds.

Ironing out the ebuild cruft is left to those who want it.  Again, 
where is the hold up for *portage*?

You're not offering any good reasons why people can't jump in and 
experiment with it despite the vaunted "plan it out first".  Gurantee 
attempting prefix offset, things will *always* be missed for handling 
all issues if you're just planning it.

Basically, I'm not seeing what point you're making beyond the fact 
there is work that's going to have to be done from the ebuild side of 
things (work you won't be able to predict I'd posit).

Last time around, prefix was ixnayed due to the fact there was work.  
People want it, and are willing to do the legwork.

What's the problem?  Why the 101 holes before they even can attempt 
it?  If you're after shooting the idea down (as I suspect), state so 
rather then death by a thousand cuts.  Saves us time, really.

Hell, haubi's patch already lays the ground work for testing it.  I'm 
not seeing why you're being negative about people even working on it.
~harring