1 |
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> The "doman" command has an -i18n option which is supported by all |
3 |
> three package managers, but so far PMS fails to documented it. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Bug 303919 [1] contains a proposal to add this documentation to PMS, |
6 |
> but also slightly change behaviour of doman, so that the -i18n option |
7 |
> would take precedence over the filename language suffix. |
8 |
|
9 |
I would say that this requires to be part of an EAPI bump in order to |
10 |
be added. On the other hand I'm all for not waiting for all of EAPI 4 |
11 |
to be ready if we think we have enough material for a bump (I'm not |
12 |
saying it's necessarily the case right now). More specifically I think |
13 |
the current situation of deciding on a number of features for a given |
14 |
EAPI before they are even worked on is proving that it's a bad idea. |
15 |
Since we're all volunteers progress occurs rather unpredictably and |
16 |
planned features which are not available yet are blocking features |
17 |
which are available and would be useful now. |
18 |
|
19 |
The downside to that is that it makes the life of the maintainers of |
20 |
package managers more difficult since they end up having to track a |
21 |
moving target. So if we decided to go that route we'd have to |
22 |
cooperate better with them and provide them with enough visibility and |
23 |
support to make it easier for them. |
24 |
|
25 |
> Do we need a council vote on this? If yes, is it something that should |
26 |
> go into EAPI 4 still? (Patches for portage [2] and PMS [3] are both |
27 |
> ready.) |
28 |
|
29 |
You can add to the agenda a vote on whether we want this feature in |
30 |
the next EAPI bump, independent of what this bump actually is. In case |
31 |
there's enough time you might even want to add a discussion on the |
32 |
above topic. |
33 |
|
34 |
Denis. |