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 1ENIr7-0000Pc-BH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:39:25 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j95NUE4b023633; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:30:14 GMT Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.203]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j95NUCNh004266 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:30:13 GMT Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 37so123301wra for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:38:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=TyYqkeTnnPZhsk/2ElWOHleKnb59mwffPQqqfwBbmmiwYlA+/e+AB/yr4TqCJdkF7qhZ89koCphJZB8H29ToEnjphudftThobJYSHqYSM6W9Y+XbNCWP3W4mCwhPwWoaLRjCObV2cfk2BkeQm79fjZMVWqM73GWdrDOlYTu90zY= Received: by 10.54.135.7 with SMTP id i7mr341589wrd; Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.108.4 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:38:43 -0700 From: m h To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID... In-Reply-To: <4344616F.4030101@egr.msu.edu> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline References: <43443257.8090800@egr.msu.edu> <20051005202429.GC10159@nightcrawler> <20051005215703.73327655@snowdrop.home> <20051005211306.GE10159@nightcrawler> <20051005233132.583685f6@snowdrop.home> <20051005230012.GK10159@nightcrawler> <4344616F.4030101@egr.msu.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j95NUCNh004266 X-Archives-Salt: d2285a8e-2d3e-4509-9368-0b72947c90e0 X-Archives-Hash: 980b9f17ea36f3efe8f67a71b7c09de4 Thanks for the warning Alec. Since I already have very limited knowledge of the internals, I figure this will be a good trial by fire (learn sort of the portage internals and issues with prefixed installs). If it works, perhaps I will be able to devote more time to it and do more than a simple prototype (which might involve writing a spec, talking to Fink people and seeing how they resolved these sorts of issues and all that fun stuff). Right now, I'm not very qualified to write a spec, but I figure when I get my hands into it I'll start seeing a lot more of the issues one is bound to run into. If it's so hard that's it's impossible then maybe I should just give up now.... What sort of "plan" do you suggest? On 10/5/05, Alec Warner wrote: > 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 > > -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list