| 1 |
Torsten Veller wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> | 15:35 < dev-zero> prepalldocs should be kept internal and usage should be avoided |
| 4 |
> | 15:36 < dev-zero> reason: internal function and change of it's implementation prooves it |
| 5 |
> | 15:36 < dev-zero> if someone want's it's functionality he should propose a solution for a future eapi |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It is not an internal function. And it's a strange way to prove anything. |
| 8 |
> Around 250 ebuilds use it. So there is probably someone who actually uses this functionality. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
And what functionality is that exactly? It's not like we would have |
| 12 |
mandated the removal of prepalldocs from Portage. How do you propose |
| 13 |
other PMs would implement prepalldocs when you have no idea which |
| 14 |
behavior the ebuild authors were expecting at the time they wrote their |
| 15 |
ebuilds? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
More discussion happened in the meeting before the one yesterday I think. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
>> Maintainers should use the public APIs available to them. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> It's in ebuild.5 for years. |
| 23 |
> And as recruiting lead you probably know that the Developer Handbook contains it as well |
| 24 |
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1>. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If someone would have put the work into it that doc would have died ages |
| 28 |
ago. Any way I changed the text there to mention that new ebuilds should |
| 29 |
not use it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I will probably do it after i got answers to the questions above. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Thanks. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I would much rather see the energy put into creating a well specified |
| 38 |
replacement for prepalldocs than trying to get prepalldocs to behave. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Regards, |
| 41 |
Petteri |
Archives