On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 10:11 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: <snip> > We once thought about having such a variable prefix. However, that > requires some extra work like storing the prefix for each installed > package, and including all/or the right prefix when a package looks for > dependencies. This isn't fleshed out yet (at least by me), so for now > we keep it at one prefix.
We have another tool besides portage to achive per-package prefixes, called CoCo, aka. Confix[1]-Configurator. Though it was designed to work with Confix'ed packages, it now also installs non-Confix-packages into separate prefixes. As it needs very similar input as portage from the ebuilds (build-commands), whe have thought somewhat on how portage could do the per-package prefix too, which would obsolete CoCo as a result. We just know that there are at least two different requirements: *) Install a package for "release": To be used by end-users of that package, which may be developers as well as non-developers. This is done by portage. pro: all packages are available at one single location. con: unknown package dependencies keep being unknown. *) Install a package for "development": To be used by this package's developer only, or another developer in a team depending on that package, or a developer developing multiple inter-dependent packages. This currently is done by CoCo for us. pro: package-dependencies are exactly defineable. con: very long (too long) commandlines, PATHes, etc. Thus, the pro of one method is the contra of the other one, and we hardly come to an idea of how to merge them into one tool. Ideas welcome! [1] http://confix.sourceforge.net/ /haubi/ -- Michael Haubenwallner SALOMON Automation GmbH Forschung & Entwicklung A-8114 Friesach bei Graz mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.salomon.at No HTML/MIME please, see http://expita.com/nomime.html -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
