From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4EB138010 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:52:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02A0CE0630; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:52:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC09E0595 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.34.143.6] (unknown [184.151.114.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CEEF1B403B for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] CWD-relative ROOT support in portage: misfeature? References: <502F0563.6070403@malth.us> From: Ian Stakenvicius Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) In-Reply-To: <502F0563.6070403@malth.us> Message-Id: <69F54735-B17B-44A5-9FF6-B5538E374619@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:50:45 -0400 To: "gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Archives-Salt: 9e81f7c8-1470-47cd-934b-df4c2fce2ae1 X-Archives-Hash: f874f357e257434df4738b616fa47614 On 2012-08-17, at 11:00 PM, "Gregory M. Turner" wrote: > It has come to my attention that gentoo supports "relative" ROOT, which is= to say that, by design, portage will act as though (in bash terms): >=20 > ROOT >=20 > equals >=20 > "${PWD}/${ROOT}" >=20 > when (again in bash terms): >=20 > [[ $ROOT !=3D /* ]] >=20 > at the moment execution crosses the boundary between a non-portage program= and a portage program. For example, I ran the following from a bash-prompt= with PWD=3D/tmp in a portage-2.2 ~amd64 environment: >=20 > greg@fedora64vmw /tmp $ mkdir foo > greg@fedora64vmw /tmp $ ROOT=3Dfoo portageq envvar ROOT > /tmp/foo/ >=20 > Question: do we really want this behavior? >=20 > I have reason to believe that almost nobody uses this feature (namely, gcc= -config and binutils-config are both broken under it for ages and nobody fil= ed a bug or fixed it: see bugzilla #431104). >=20 > Does /anybody/ use this feature? If not, I'd suggest that the portage tea= m might ask itself whether the benefits of continuing to maintain it are gre= ater than the hassle and potential for error it facilitates. >=20 > Just my 2c, >=20 > -gmt Sorry for the HTML response... am on the road. I don't use the feature but I would fully expect said behavior. ie, going wi= th the example above I would expect that I'd need the / in front for the p= ath to not be relative. >=20