From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ENIga-0007gj-HH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:28:32 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j95NJ7LV000144; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:19:07 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j95NJ6mw031422 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:19:06 GMT Received: from [35.9.140.221] (tokyo.dhcp.egr.msu.edu [35.9.140.221]) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j95NRadk022156 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4344616F.4030101@egr.msu.edu> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:27:43 -0400 From: Alec Warner User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID... References: <43443257.8090800@egr.msu.edu> <20051005202429.GC10159@nightcrawler> <20051005215703.73327655@snowdrop.home> <20051005211306.GE10159@nightcrawler> <20051005233132.583685f6@snowdrop.home> <20051005230012.GK10159@nightcrawler> In-Reply-To: <20051005230012.GK10159@nightcrawler> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8bb55053-9b0c-4b67-813e-3f711c81f265 X-Archives-Hash: 0ffdb785fc6e0652b6c854ccab823dcd Brian Harring wrote: >On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:31:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > >>On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:13:06 -0500 Brian Harring >>wrote: >>| A) would like to hear what you think is required planning wise >>| compared to the previous haubi prototype patch. >> >>There has been no serious discussion on how *ebuilds* will use the >>prefix system. Hacking econf and expecting PREFIX to be sufficient is >>naive from a tree-perspective. >> >> > >econf isn't the only change required; the point is that whatever is >decided, would have to be added to econf thus covering a good chunk of >ebuilds in the tree that don't require fancy voodoo. > >The basic proposal of haubi's glep (ignoring the portage innard >modifications) came down to addition of a prefix var, that would be >required slipped in for any fs installation paths (--prefix=$PREFX >fex). > >Beyond that, there is the shebang issue which can be addresses via a >combination of automated scans/fixes, and fixing bugs as it's hit. >Hardcoded vars in scripts for the path to a binary are an issue also, >although again, scans can be done to at least check for it. > >Leaves mangling the build process so that the build framework of the >package uses the prefix offset files, rather then / . For c/c++ >source, usual trick from fink afaik involves a mangling of cflags with >-I tacked in. Kinda ugly, although I'd expect there is a better >route. > >Packages that pull include/compile settings/args from a utility >(thinking python configuration tools, and pkgconfig) shouldn't be too >horrid to change, since it's a matter of modifying it in one place >(theoretically :). >~harring > > > > I guess in the end trying to do something like this is a difficult process. I am wary of anyone who wants to just jump into an application like portage and just magically write in this kind of support. In the end one could just try and go step by step, but nothing guarantee's you won't miss something, or because it works with packages x,y,z that it will work for all packages. If you have two weeks to do it in, I wish you the best of luck. Maybe you are good enough at learning portage internals to get it done, but even after portage support is done there are still plenty of other factors. In the end I side with Ciaran on this one. You need to know all the bases to cover here in order to make this work well. Going ahead with no plan is stupid IMHO. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list