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 |