Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:48:33
Message-Id: 1324291668.3529.4.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: deprecate /usr/share/doc/$PF by "Michał Górny"
1 El lun, 19-12-2011 a las 09:31 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
2 > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:07:45 +0100
3 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > > El dom, 18-12-2011 a las 23:02 +0100, Michał Górny escribió:
6 > > [...]
7 > > > > Q6: Why can't the dodoc/dohtml path be changed before EAPI-5?
8 > > > > A6: Because the path where dodoc and dohtml install files is part
9 > > > > of the PMS. Portage can't just change it on its own. A possible
10 > > > > workaround for current EAPIs is adding new-style dodoc/dohtml
11 > > > > analogues to an eclass.
12 > > >
13 > > > I think some of devs agree we should be allowed to fix past mistakes
14 > > > without waiting another 20 years till the tree is migrated to a new
15 > > > EAPI...
16 > > >
17 > >
18 > > Maybe this situation could be improved if there was a policy forcing
19 > > us to try to use latest EAPI when possible for any package update,
20 > > that way we would move faster to latest eapi and even deprecate older
21 > > eapis easily
22 >
23 > Still unlikely. A bunch of old eclasses will force ebuilds to be EAPI 0
24 > or so.
25 >
26
27 Well, I was meaning eapis different than 0, I know it will need to be
28 kept more time due backwards compatibility ;)
29
30 Regarding other eapis, how many eclasses are still requiring old eapis?
31 I think games.eclass was one of them, but haven't reviewed others :S

Attachments

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