Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: "Petteri R├Ąty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: prepalldocs
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:51:35
Message-Id: 4995898A.4020708@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Re: prepalldocs by Torsten Veller
Torsten Veller wrote:
> > | 15:35 < dev-zero> prepalldocs should be kept internal and usage should be avoided > | 15:36 < dev-zero> reason: internal function and change of it's implementation prooves it > | 15:36 < dev-zero> if someone want's it's functionality he should propose a solution for a future eapi > > It is not an internal function. And it's a strange way to prove anything. > Around 250 ebuilds use it. So there is probably someone who actually uses this functionality. >
And what functionality is that exactly? It's not like we would have mandated the removal of prepalldocs from Portage. How do you propose other PMs would implement prepalldocs when you have no idea which behavior the ebuild authors were expecting at the time they wrote their ebuilds? More discussion happened in the meeting before the one yesterday I think.
> >> Maintainers should use the public APIs available to them. > > It's in ebuild.5 for years. > And as recruiting lead you probably know that the Developer Handbook contains it as well > <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1>. >
If someone would have put the work into it that doc would have died ages ago. Any way I changed the text there to mention that new ebuilds should not use it.
> > I will probably do it after i got answers to the questions above. > > Thanks. >
I would much rather see the energy put into creating a well specified replacement for prepalldocs than trying to get prepalldocs to behave. Regards, Petteri

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature