1 |
On 06/23/2016 05:04 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> I have created tracker bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/586734 for the |
3 |
> LINGUAS to L10N conversion, and started to file bugs for individual |
4 |
> packages. (Starting with lightweight stuff like metapackages, so users |
5 |
> won't spend too much time with rebuilding if they don't get their L10N |
6 |
> configuration immediately right.) |
7 |
> |
8 |
> However, it looks like filing bugs for all affected packages is going |
9 |
> to be tedious. Therefore I am asking for permission to update ebuilds |
10 |
> for the easy cases directly, e.g. when the change is only a simple |
11 |
> renaming from linguas_* to l10n_*. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Please speak up if you don't want your packages to be touched and |
14 |
> prefer bugs to be filed for them. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Ulrich |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
I was going through my packages to make sure that I was compliant with |
20 |
this change, and found that I was not. The l10n eclass makes use of the |
21 |
LINGUAS USE_EXPAND and isn't covered in the tracker bug. I attempted to |
22 |
read through the old thread to see if someone mentioned that eclass, but |
23 |
I must have missed it if someone mentioned it. Are we EOL'ing that |
24 |
eclass, or keeping it (update or revbump)? |
25 |
|
26 |
Looks to me like we can't edit that eclass in place, so if we are to |
27 |
keep it, we should probably revbump it, update the -r1 to L10N, and add |
28 |
a deprecation warning to the old eclass to help maintainers migrate over. |
29 |
|
30 |
Any opinions? I'd be happy work on the revbump for the eclass if we |
31 |
decide to go that route. CC'ing yngwin since it is his eclass. |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
NP-Hardass |