RFC: changing sys-apps/portage python API to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db and similar map objects
On 01-10-2011 10:34:02 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> As I integrate prefix support into mainline portage, I think it will
Cool! and Thanks!
> make more sense to use $EROOT instead of $ROOT for keys to portage.db
> and similar map objects. This will also affect the portageq commands
> which take a <root> parameter. The reason that I think $EROOT makes more
> sense for these keys is that it will allow for multiple prefixes to
> exist simultaneously in maps like portage.db.
> This won't affect non-prefix users, since $EROOT == $ROOT when $EPREFIX
> is empty. So, I'm asking here because if might affect prefix users who
> use portageq, or any programs installed in a prefix that use the
> sys-apps/portage python API. If necessary, I suppose that python
> programs could have some compatibility code which checks whether or no
> $EROOT is contained in portage.db, and fall back to "/" otherwise.
What does it actually mean? Does one have to use
portageq envvar CHOST $EPREFIX/
instead when this is implemented?
That would seem not correct to me.