From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from mail.thpoon.com (CPE0080c8f2c614.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [24.42.106.79]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 34C24200B27B for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 23:05:22 -0600 (CST) Received: (qmail 24747 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 05:03:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tea.thpoon.com) (192.168.1.2) by 192.168.1.1 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 05:03:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 3018 invoked by uid 1000); 20 Feb 2002 05:02:36 -0000 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] prefix overide portage References: X-Face: 0=A/O5-+sE[Tf%X>rYr?Y5LD4,:^'jaJ!4jC&UR*ZrrK2>^`g22Qeb]!:d;}2YJ|Hq"LHdF OX`jWX|AT-WVFQ(TPhFVak)0nt$aEdlOq=1~D,:\z5QlVOrZ2(H,mKg=Xr|'VlHA="r Mail-Reply-To: agenkin-dated-1015390329.49dafb@thpoon.com Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:02:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Dave Lee's message of "Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:38:21 -0700") Message-ID: <87r8ngd9uf.fsf@tea.thpoon.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, i686-pc-linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Arcady Genkin" X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.47 (Python 2.2 on linux2) Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Reply-To: agenkin-dated-1015390328.1a6459@thpoon.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 458545d1-213b-48dc-bb31-9566f06edbba X-Archives-Hash: e09a2029fb9d88d1d441219bc8883e02 Dave Lee writes: >> > I noticed that alot of packages in portage statically set the >> > install prefix. >> >> Yes alot of packages are setup that way. I'm of a mixed opinion if >> thats a good or a bad thing. If we do decide to make it more >> configurable down the road its going to require alot of ebuild touchups, >> etc. Alot of configure scripts require path information to headers, >> assume files are in various locations, etc. I can tell from experience >> if you set a less-then-common prefix many configure scripts are going to >> break on you (meaning we'd have to hack on a bunch of them :( > > I don't think this would actually be "hacking", I would call it something > much nicer, like cleaning up. I could not agree more. I think that it would be extremely useful to be able to set a custom prefix for packages installation. There is a large upgrade coming up in our lab, and I'm going to try to make a case for Gentoo to replace Redhat. But I know that one of the problems that my boss is going to point out is inability to easilly package software into /local (our conventional location) instead of /usr. > It should't be too much effort to let loose some scripts on the > portage tree to fix --preifx=/usr to --preifx=$SOME_PREFIX_VAR where > the SOME_PREFIX_VAR can be set in /etc/make.conf. There's more to it than that, but, arguably, nothing that cannot be done. I, too, suggest that we introduce the functionality of the custom package prefix in /etc/make.conf. -- Arcady Genkin Don't read everyting you believe.