| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:18:06 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:10:33 -0500 |
| 5 |
> Michael Sterrett <mr_bones_@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > So everybody who emerges gnupg since this change is wasting space |
| 7 |
> > for no good reason. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If you care about a couple of hundred kilobytes, relying upon |
| 10 |
> individual ebuilds to ask the package manager to compress |
| 11 |
> documentation in some arbitrary manner is the wrong solution. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Then, for the nth time, what would be the good solution? How would one |
| 14 |
convert prepalldocs usage to something allowed? I've failed to find |
| 15 |
anything about it in the relevant bug and the only answer I've seen is |
| 16 |
"remove it". You can count on me for marking any prepalldocs removal bug |
| 17 |
I'll be the assignee as wontfix as long as there won't be any |
| 18 |
alternative solution. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Note that I would consider a viable solution banning prepalldocs and |
| 21 |
simply removing it if portage was compressing docs by its own or |
| 22 |
calling prepalldocs after src_install... but then IMHO that's the |
| 23 |
removal of prepalldocs that would require an EAPI bump not its |
| 24 |
reintroduction. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Alexis. |
Archives