Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:26:45
Message-Id: 1324261568.12311.104.camel@rook
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF by "Michał Górny"
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 23:02 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> What if 'foo' has slot named 'bar', and there is unslotted 'foo-bar' > package? :P
There are no such examples in the tree. The only ebuilds I could find with non-numeric slots are various kernel sources, chromium, google-chrome, beautifulsoup, python-dateutil, b43-firmware, binutils-apple, gcc-apple, and rep-gtk. If cross-compiling there is also insight, gdb, newlib, and uclibc, maybe a few more packages from sys-devel/. For completeness, I suppose that it wouldn't hurt to add a provision to allow package maintainers to choose a different documentation directory if that's required to prevent a file collision.
> > Q5: Then why allow package maintainers to alternatively use > > $CATEGORY/$PN-0? A5: Why not? It will not hurt anything, will not > > cause file collisions, and some maintainers of a multislotted > > package, one of which is 0, might prefer to install that slot's docs > > in $CATEGORY/$PN-0 to prevent a potential impression that docs in > > $CATEGORY/$PN apply to all of that package's slots. > > This will make the policy less clear, and documentation locations more > enigmatic for users.
Fair point. OK, let's kill the "-0"; slot 0 goes in $CATEGORY/$PN only.
> While at this, I think we should somehow move > the docs for all EAPIs to avoid this, and probably move installed ones > as well. > > [...] > > I think some of devs agree we should be allowed to fix past mistakes > without waiting another 20 years till the tree is migrated to a new > EAPI...
Then we will also need an eclass-based solution for existing EAPIs to replace dodoc/dohtml. -Alexandre.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>