| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Then, for the nth time, what would be the good solution? How would |
| 4 |
> one convert prepalldocs usage to something allowed? I've failed to |
| 5 |
> find anything about it in the relevant bug and the only answer I've |
| 6 |
> seen is "remove it". You can count on me for marking any prepalldocs |
| 7 |
> removal bug I'll be the assignee as wontfix as long as there won't |
| 8 |
> be any alternative solution. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Note that I would consider a viable solution banning prepalldocs and |
| 11 |
> simply removing it if portage was compressing docs by its own or |
| 12 |
> calling prepalldocs after src_install... but then IMHO that's the |
| 13 |
> removal of prepalldocs that would require an EAPI bump not its |
| 14 |
> reintroduction. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I think a viable solution would consist of two parts: |
| 17 |
1. Add some exclude mechanism to prepalldocs, as suggested in |
| 18 |
bug 164114 [1]. |
| 19 |
2. Have Portage call prepalldocs by default (in prepall). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This way, everything installed under /usr/share/doc would be |
| 22 |
compressed by default (honouring the user's setting of |
| 23 |
PORTAGE_COMPRESS). Any package that needs literal, uncompressed files |
| 24 |
in /usr/share/doc could specify this via the exclude mechanism. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Obviously, this is an incompatible change and would require an EAPI |
| 27 |
bump. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Ulrich |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164114> |
Archives