1 |
On 10/01/2018 11:23 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> On 10/01/2018 11:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 19:23 +0200, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Montag, 1. Oktober 2018 17:48:16 CEST Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 08:19 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> /usr/share/doc level directories |
7 |
>>>>> ================================ |
8 |
>>>>> /usr/share/doc/${PF} |
9 |
>>>>> |
10 |
>>>>> The first bug report [2] is for qt-core, which installs documentation |
11 |
>>>>> into /usr/share/doc/${PN}-${PV} instead of /usr/share/doc/${PF} (${PF} |
12 |
>>>>> includes ebuild revision such as -r1, -r2, and so on). |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> No, it doesn't. There's no /usr/share/doc/qtcore-5.11.1 on my system. |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>>> This is coming from dev-qt/qt-docs. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Nope, still not /usr/share/doc/qt*core*-... |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>>> It is a problem because any other package |
21 |
>>> building QCH API docs with cross-references to Qt API needs to install below |
22 |
>>> this path, and will generate the same QA warning (currently kde-frameworks/* |
23 |
>>> does this). |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Yes. That is why I believe that hardcoding the exception in every |
26 |
>> package is simply wrong. Wouldn't it be cleaner to account for the path |
27 |
>> in the QA check? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> There may be cases where we want to fix the ebuild to use |
30 |
> /usr/share/doc/${PF} though, right? |
31 |
|
32 |
Until this QA check has adjustable whitelist support, we can consider it |
33 |
an unstable work in progress. Therefore, I'd like for the QA team to |
34 |
move it gentoo/metadata/install-qa-check.d/08gentoo-paths until it has |
35 |
matured. It's safe to commit it to the gentoo repository now, and it |
36 |
will become active when portage's internal copy is removed. I've filed |
37 |
this bug report to track progress: |
38 |
|
39 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/667604 |
40 |
-- |
41 |
Thanks, |
42 |
Zac |