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 AE122138A1A for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:54:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B0159E08B8; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483A7E08B5 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from big_daddy.dol-sen.ca (S010634bdfa9ecf80.vc.shawcable.net [96.49.31.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dolsen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CA9C3406B6 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:54:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 08:54:24 -0800 From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH] TestFakedbapi: override EPREFIX for bug #492932 Message-ID: <20150118085424.386260c3.dolsen@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <54BAB4FA.5050502@gentoo.org> References: <1419109871-21962-1-git-send-email-zmedico@gentoo.org> <54BAB4FA.5050502@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8c1a5946-a885-4ed4-9832-226bdb7ead99 X-Archives-Hash: acc14d5eae1c0998aa36567e96d241fe On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 11:16:10 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > On 12/20/2014 01:11 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > > For tests, override portage.const.EPREFIX in order to avoid unwanted > > access to /etc/portage. This override may seem evil, but it is a > > convenient way to simulate a prefix install, and it is reasonable > > to do this because tests should be self-contained such that the > > "real" value of portage.const.EPREFIX is entirely irrelevant. > > Any feedback on this? I think it's good to merge. > > I know it's ugly, but it's simple and it works. Maybe we'll come up > with something fancier later on. I didn't think it was "ugly", 2 lines of code and some comments... yes, merge please -- Brian Dolbec