Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for March 26

[Tiziano Müller]

Am Donnerstag, den 26.03.2009, 19:12 +0100 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> On 12:25 Mon 23 Mar     , Robert Buchholz wrote:
> > On Monday 23 March 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > Spec needed. DOCS or no DOCS?
> >
> > DOCS, and non-empty default value, please [1].
> > Some eclasses already do this (not base, but others), and if that
> > default doesn't cover it for you, the function can be overridden.
> >
> > Concerning the argument of declarative ebuilds vs. bash-oriented ebuilds
> > brought up by Donnie: Our ebuilds always had declarative parts with an
> > impact on the PM (e.g. RESTRICT), or on eclasses (WANT_AUTOCONF, or
> > look at the games eclass).
> > I think if we stay within sane limits[2], following this paradigm is
> > going to help developers because more simple cases will be caught by
> > the default implementation without adding the complexities of having to
> > know tons of (aka "more than one") variables and how they interact.
>
> I probably would have agreed with you a few EAPIs ago where stuff was
> more painful. Take a look at this, though -- it doesn't seem so bad to
> me in a non-DOCS, EAPI=3 world:
>
> src_install() {
> 	default
> 	dodoc foo bar
> }
>
Well, we can just start with such a default src_install and then change
it in a later EAPI if we see that it would be more useful to have
DOCS="".

But again: eclasses for certain package classes already provide
src_install implementations considering DOCS for installing
documentation. Which shows that some developers think it's useful.