Summary: | devmanual: add documentation for the $ROOT variable | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Documentation | Reporter: | Rajiv Aaron Manglani (RETIRED) <rajiv> |
Component: | Devmanual | Assignee: | Gentoo Devmanual Team <devmanual> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | betelgeuse, caster, chewi, leho |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Other | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 137867, 258125 | ||
Attachments: | add_section_about_root.patch |
Description
Rajiv Aaron Manglani (RETIRED)
![]() It is documented in devmanual: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html But the explanation should be more clear. See bug 167240 for example. Let's try to keep technical documentation in devmanual instead of spread all over the developers handbook. I'll leave it to QA to decide if the current devmanual documentation needs to be expanded or if it's already sufficient. I agree it should be kept in devmanual, but extended. Also, has_version and built_with_use (see bug 145134) documentation should warn that it uses ROOT and one should take care to override it to ROOT=/ when used in src_* Created attachment 184040 [details, diff]
add_section_about_root.patch
first draft. please comment!
(In reply to comment #4) > Created an attachment (id=184040) [details] > add_section_about_root.patch > > first draft. please comment! > I like this patch. I will commit it if there are no objections just browsing through $ROOT stuff, since running into bug 53629. can 14 months of silence here be considered as "there are no objections"? Ping, is the attached patch still correct for today's way of dealing with ROOT? Seems fine to me; but being only around for a year, a second ack would be nice. Reassigning this to devmanual This is fixed in: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=d1a7be9d1bf8138fe3476a579ce0af004979c914 Thanks for the patch! |