| 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. |
Archives