| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>> As I see it, we should simply ban einstall in EAPI 6. This way, we |
| 5 |
>> can prevent further mistakes from happening and let developers fix |
| 6 |
>> the current consumers once bumping EAPI (or lastrite them at some |
| 7 |
>> point). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> It may be worth mentioning that econf in EAPI 6 will pass --docdir |
| 10 |
> and --htmldir options to configure. These would take precedence over |
| 11 |
> einstall's prefix="${ED}"/usr, i.e. einstall's path for documentation |
| 12 |
> files would be broken because ${D} would be missing from it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> So _if_ we decide to keep einstall, then we would have to pass |
| 15 |
> additional docdir and htmldir variables. OTOH, maybe this would be a |
| 16 |
> good occasion for getting rid of the function. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I see no further replies to this thread, so I will raise this as an |
| 19 |
item for the next council meeting. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Currently, only 218 ebuilds are using einstall, which is less than |
| 22 |
0.6 % of all ebuilds in the tree. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ulrich |
Archives