1 |
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 23:02 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> What if 'foo' has slot named 'bar', and there is unslotted 'foo-bar' |
3 |
> package? :P |
4 |
|
5 |
There are no such examples in the tree. The only ebuilds I could find |
6 |
with non-numeric slots are various kernel sources, chromium, |
7 |
google-chrome, beautifulsoup, python-dateutil, b43-firmware, |
8 |
binutils-apple, gcc-apple, and rep-gtk. If cross-compiling there is also |
9 |
insight, gdb, newlib, and uclibc, maybe a few more packages from |
10 |
sys-devel/. |
11 |
|
12 |
For completeness, I suppose that it wouldn't hurt to add a provision to |
13 |
allow package maintainers to choose a different documentation directory |
14 |
if that's required to prevent a file collision. |
15 |
|
16 |
> > Q5: Then why allow package maintainers to alternatively use |
17 |
> > $CATEGORY/$PN-0? A5: Why not? It will not hurt anything, will not |
18 |
> > cause file collisions, and some maintainers of a multislotted |
19 |
> > package, one of which is 0, might prefer to install that slot's docs |
20 |
> > in $CATEGORY/$PN-0 to prevent a potential impression that docs in |
21 |
> > $CATEGORY/$PN apply to all of that package's slots. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> This will make the policy less clear, and documentation locations more |
24 |
> enigmatic for users. |
25 |
|
26 |
Fair point. OK, let's kill the "-0"; slot 0 goes in $CATEGORY/$PN only. |
27 |
|
28 |
> While at this, I think we should somehow move |
29 |
> the docs for all EAPIs to avoid this, and probably move installed ones |
30 |
> as well. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> [...] |
33 |
> |
34 |
> I think some of devs agree we should be allowed to fix past mistakes |
35 |
> without waiting another 20 years till the tree is migrated to a new |
36 |
> EAPI... |
37 |
|
38 |
Then we will also need an eclass-based solution for existing EAPIs to |
39 |
replace dodoc/dohtml. |
40 |
|
41 |
-Alexandre. |