Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Petteri R├Ąty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev-announce@l.g.o, gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:56:32
Message-Id: 499C689D.9030707@gentoo.org
1 There seems to be lot of confusion and discussion on the prepalldocs
2 issue so let me try to clear the air and present my own view on the
3 matter. This is effectively what was voted on in the council meeting:
4
5 20:35 < dev-zero> prepalldocs should be kept internal and usage should
6 be avoided
7 20:36 < dev-zero> reason: internal function and change of it's
8 implementation prooves it
9 20:36 < dev-zero> if someone want's it's functionality he should propose
10 a solution for a future eapi
11
12 and later
13
14 20:39 < dberkholz> ok, so what we're saying is prepalldocs won't be in
15 any current EAPI and needs to be removed from ebuilds. is that accurate?
16
17 To me it seems that based on summaries and other factors some developers
18 seem to have understood that prepalldocs should immediately be removed
19 from all ebuilds using it. When I voted on the issue it was my intention
20 to put the issue on the table so that a proper technical solution can be
21 achieved. If we just leave it there, it's most likely that nothing will
22 happen. So until we have a decision on what the replacement will be I
23 don't see a need to remove current prepalldocs usage but any new usage
24 must be avoided.
25
26 So hopefully we will learn from this and can get things communicated
27 better next time.
28
29 Regards,
30 Petteri
31
32 PS. Modifying eutils.eclass without review on gentoo-dev is not allowed
33 PPS. Instead of discussion about has happened let's try to refocus
34 energy on writing code instead

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs Mike Auty <ikelos@g.o>