| 1 |
В Пнд, 01/02/2010 в 14:29 +0100, Tomáš Chvátal пишет: |
| 2 |
> > 2. |
| 3 |
> > if has X ${IUSE//+} && use X ; then |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I'm not sure. With this change should we update all packages depending |
| 6 |
> > on font.eclass to have X in IUSE? |
| 7 |
> Nak this specialy allows that you dont have to keep X in iuse. |
| 8 |
> But it does not matter anyway because it is and was always defined by |
| 9 |
> eclass. But with this syntax it allows us to remove that IUSE="X" from |
| 10 |
> eclass global scope at some point. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Do we have such goal? Where this is useful? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > 4. |
| 15 |
> > + [[ -n ${DOCS} ]] && { dodoc ${DOCS} || die "docs installation |
| 16 |
> > failed" ; } |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > This should be non fatal, until somebody installs all packages that |
| 19 |
> > inherit font.eclass and assures us that nothing broke with this change. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Actualy former behaviour was violating QA rules for dodoc, so it should |
| 22 |
> be fixed anyway. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And yet we have more strong policy that states "not to break the tree". |
| 25 |
Since previous version of eclass issued no warning about missed |
| 26 |
documentation, it's highly probable that lot's of font packages will |
| 27 |
fail to emerge after this change (we already had one report, while |
| 28 |
eclass is in x11 overlay only)... So this is no go, until somebody |
| 29 |
checks that no package (at least in stable tree) became broken by this |
| 30 |
change. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Peter. |
Archives