Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 18-10-2009 14:31:15 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> On 18-10-2009 13:57:10 +0200, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: >>> Hi, >>> You know i am totaly supporting prefix but i have one point. >>> Why on earth portage simply does not detect the prefix enviroment is being >>> run >>> and then INTERNALY switch D->ED and other variables. It would be much >>> easier >>> that way to migrate all stuff in portage instead of doing this || shebang. >>> Mostly when it is done by eclasses its quite cool, but when you get into >>> changing lots of ebuilds its quite hard for maintaining. >>> >>> Even the multilib overlay guys rather modify the portage than changing a >>> load >>> of ebuilds. >> Of course we would like to do that, but that was rejected for EAPI=3, so >> it will at least take until EAPI=4 is implemented, which is not the >> forseeable future, given that EAPI=3 isn't a fact yet either. > > I was just informed that it is also a possibility to do an EAPI bump > just for these variables, which would mean we can avoid replicating > setting ED and EROOT in ebuilds. >
It's possible. > The suggestion was to just introduce EAPI=3 with these variables, and > making everything which is scheduled for current EAPI=3 just EAPI=4. I > was told we could quite quickly have a Portage in the tree that would > set ED and EROOT for EAPI=3 that way. > Maybe 2+prefix is a more describing name? This would avoid changing what EAPI 3 means. > Are there any objections to this? If not, I'd like to put this on the > agenda for the next council meeting. > As the council decided to add new stuff in the last meeting if zac is starting to implement new EAPIs this could go into EAPI 3 too. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
