On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:46:55 +0200
large snip
What's the scope of the changes? I think it'd be easiest to discuss
this if you posted an informal summary describing the differences in
terms of which bits of PMS are
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:40:53 -0500
Jeremy Olexa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a way I feel like we (the Prefix project) are mis-using the EAPI
value.
You're misusing it in the way you treat it as a set of strings rather
than a single value. But this being an EAPI thing seems right.
If we have
Hi all,
The Prefix team has a separate Portage branch which implements the
prefix extensions. In short, this encompasses the addition of the
variables EPREFIX, ED and EROOT, and the function eprefixify to the
ebuild/eclass environment, which may be used to make an ebuild work for
a given prefix
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:46:55 +0200
Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently in Prefix we implemented EAPI as being a set of tokens that
are orthogonal to each other. In other words, while 0, 1 and 2 are
mutual exclusive, prefix can be applied to 0, 1, or 2. The result
is something
On 09-10-2008 19:15:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:46:55 +0200
Fabian Groffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently in Prefix we implemented EAPI as being a set of tokens that
are orthogonal to each other. In other words, while 0, 1 and 2 are
mutual exclusive, prefix
