| 1 |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:07:45 +0100 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> El dom, 18-12-2011 a las 23:02 +0100, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 5 |
> [...] |
| 6 |
> > > Q6: Why can't the dodoc/dohtml path be changed before EAPI-5? |
| 7 |
> > > A6: Because the path where dodoc and dohtml install files is part |
| 8 |
> > > of the PMS. Portage can't just change it on its own. A possible |
| 9 |
> > > workaround for current EAPIs is adding new-style dodoc/dohtml |
| 10 |
> > > analogues to an eclass. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I think some of devs agree we should be allowed to fix past mistakes |
| 13 |
> > without waiting another 20 years till the tree is migrated to a new |
| 14 |
> > EAPI... |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Maybe this situation could be improved if there was a policy forcing |
| 18 |
> us to try to use latest EAPI when possible for any package update, |
| 19 |
> that way we would move faster to latest eapi and even deprecate older |
| 20 |
> eapis easily |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Still unlikely. A bunch of old eclasses will force ebuilds to be EAPI 0 |
| 23 |
or so. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Michał Górny |
Archives