From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4179D138334 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:18:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AAD2E0831; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C378E0831 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:18:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15 (host2092.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAAAE346145; Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:18:16 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: James Le Cuirot Cc: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] [PATCH] Correct the definition of ESYSROOT as EPREFIX isn't always applicable References: <20190601222921.12072-1-chewi@gentoo.org> <20190613210956.165c5961@symphony.aura-online.co.uk> <024EBD18-1089-4E36-A251-E52135C80625@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:18:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <024EBD18-1089-4E36-A251-E52135C80625@gentoo.org> (James Le Cuirot's message of "Fri, 14 Jun 2019 23:23:27 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Package Manager Specification discussions X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-pms@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: cf640d22-011e-4d9a-b39b-bfc8be76d02c X-Archives-Hash: bcb5b99030243c711490ba2cee3fdc48 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, James Le Cuirot wrote: > I don't personally use prefix so I don't really have a horse in this > race. We're also talking about fairly edgy edge cases here. I've never > heard of any prefix users using ROOT. I just want to make sure our > package manager is built on solid standards that make sense. I also > want to do right by the prefix guys. After reading the discussion in bug 317337 again, I think that the change should be announced on a wider scope, e.g. the gentoo-dev mailing list. Just to make sure that everybody (prefix people in particular) is on the same page. And especially, if we go for a retroactive change. Also, trying to summarise it in a table: SYSROOT ESYSROOT ----------------------------------------- / ${BROOT} ${ROOT} ${EROOT} (= ${ROOT}${EPREFIX}) other ${SYSROOT} ----------------------------------------- Is this correct? What happens if both ROOT and SYSROOT are equal to /? First or second row? Ulrich --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEZlHkP3TnuTbxrN0HwwkGhRxhwnMFAl0Eqb4ACgkQwwkGhRxh wnMkZQf+MQm6AkX55LVAonrW9QPM4rDp5mQnq9Uw1OaNJC31BOXpMr2mZfiLpt2T 00noU0uKqRN62/Rui7GCFs3oAyzFiw0PAd5o4e2p6hBENeihsIP0kbgbhChjKa0L t34hXr6rzqTC7vzdMR0DrGJpXzgsfFhUH9/vq1UPLgkYkN2G70ZNkRH9KzuuBUoZ UsgyCjHWUltgdZwH12D3aQFxx4rqCW4Kjh5JxcA6DW3cY5NmwCi6Uhjy1dcWljXa V/9KMk9VDbxFhwcsZ0yfiT5RhUVmSgD9h78gnRGfhlyvjR0ykqeoe6TrSN7lvhgL Ije32GYSj0/vUk5ITht/80m6Udha5Q== =kTLa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--