On 10/31/05, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:16:44PM -0800, m h wrote: > > Kito- > > > > Are you leveraging the work done by Haubi documented here: > > http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Use_prefixed_portage_%28in_development%29 > > Yah, although differs in certain respects; > > 1) affix doesn't exist > 2) bound to a temp EAPI to use for masking non prefix capable ebuilds > 3) Strict paths. *really* strict. > 4) by hand reimplementation of the python side of the modifications > 5) stable based. the patch referenced is 2.1; I (mostly by hand I'm > afraid) backported the relevant chunks, rewriting what was needed and > simplifying it down a bit (affix removal fex). > > There is common code between them, but right now the prefix patch I've > been splitting off of 2.0.51-rc4 is the simple cousin of haubi's work, > round two basically, with a lot of patch monkeying via kito/myself to > iron the beast out. > > > Just wondering because I've been able to use this to get portage > > installed on a FC4 system (I know it's not OSX). But another user has > > been able to use this to install over 200 packages on an AIX system. > > Should be usable in both cases. Literally, the prefix stable patch is > chunks of my 2.1 work and haubi's work torn out and integrated into 2.0 > for prototype demonstration. Exempting the AFFIX difference, should > work in a similar fashion across systems, although haubi's stage0 work > is a seperate thing. >
(I don't miss AFFIX...actually I think it's a little confusing). Thanks for the response Brian. I'm just wondering if your changes are being tracked anywhere or if there is discussion of this going on anywhere (in a mailing list perhaps?)? I like to lurk there if possible... What bootstrap process do you recommend? (since you aren't using haubi's) -- [email protected] mailing list
