| 1 |
Andreas K. Huettel posted on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 21:29:30 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Am Samstag, 12. Dezember 2015, 10:15:05 schrieb Duncan: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> What I would have expected to see here (and in other docs-related |
| 6 |
>> patches) would be cleanly separate EAPI-5 vs. EAPI-6 descriptions, on |
| 7 |
>> separate lines, so when EAPI-5 support cleanup time comes, it's easy |
| 8 |
>> to simply delete EAPI-5 lines. Something like: |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> Well... In a way that certainly makes sense. However, ... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Once this is out I would personally prefer all bumps to be also EAPI |
| 13 |
> bumps, and all new perl-module.eclass ebuilds to use EAPI=6. Adding |
| 14 |
> extensive documentation about EAPI=5 seems to be counterproductive |
| 15 |
> there. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
What I was (perhaps too) gently hinting was that docs aren't just for |
| 18 |
devs. Users use them too, when debugging existing ebuild failures, etc. |
| 19 |
Presumably existing EAPI-5 perl-module.eclass consuming ebuilds will be |
| 20 |
around, at least in stable, for a few months, correct? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But upon closer look I see only functions were previously documented (as |
| 23 |
of my tree from 10 days ago anyway), so you're adding var documentation |
| 24 |
that wasn't there at all earlier and it's not a labeling regression after |
| 25 |
all. Given that any documentation is better than none... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I understand doing it the way you did it, now. =:^) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Tho I'd still probably put that last EAPI-5 sentence on its own line, |
| 30 |
again, making EAPI-5 cleanup when the time comes that much easier. =:^) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 34 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 35 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives