On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 22:37:35 +0100
James Le Cuirot <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> - & \t{BDEPEND} &
> \t{DEPEND} & \t{RDEPEND}, \t{PDEPEND} \\
> + & \t{BDEPEND} &
> \t{DEPEND} & \t{RDEPEND}, \t{PDEPEND} \\
> \midrule
There seems to be unneeded whitespace only changes here that make the
diff less readable
[...]
> \t{ESYSROOT} &
> Ditto &
> No &
> - Contains the concatenation of the paths in the \t{SYSROOT} and
> \t{EPREFIX} variables,
> - for convenience. See also the \t{EPREFIX} variable. Only for
> EAPIs listed
> - in table~\ref{tab:offset-env-vars-table} as supporting
> \t{ESYSROOT}. \\
> + Contains the concatenation of the \t{SYSROOT} path and
> applicable prefix value. The prefix value
> + is \t{EPREFIX}, \t{BROOT}, or blank if \t{SYSROOT} is equal to
> \t{ROOT}, \t{/}, or something
> + else respectively. Only for EAPIs listed in
> table~\ref{tab:offset-env-vars-table} as supporting
> + \t{ESYSROOT}. \\
> \t{BROOT} &
> Ditto &
> No &
Admittedly without a full understanding of the problem, but this looks
wrong to me: SYSROOT, EPREFIX and BROOT are only relevant in build
phases (src_*); (EPREFIX is a little special here but mostly for
convenience). ROOT is only relevant in pkg_* phases. I don't see how
this can work. Say I build a binpkg with ROOT=/ then use that binpkg
with ROOT=/somewhere, you can't go back and change SYSROOT.
Also, I think the wording could be more "programmatic" (if ... then
ESYSROOT is ... else ... ) to avoid confusion.
Alexis.
