1 |
Mike Auty wrote: |
2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
3 |
>> So until we have a decision on what the replacement will be I |
4 |
>> don't see a need to remove current prepalldocs usage but any new usage |
5 |
>> must be avoided. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> If it's simply discouraged, perhaps a repoman check, and some people to |
8 |
> come forward with a better suggestion is all that's necessary? Once the |
9 |
> new system's in place the repoman check can be made fatal, and suggest |
10 |
> the new mechanism. That would save endless "do/don't" conversations on |
11 |
> -dev. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> It might also be worthwhile the council posting another official mail |
14 |
> clarifying the position, so that we can all get on with our lives. |
15 |
> Those that don't agree with the council can take the normal steps to |
16 |
> bring their disagreement to their attention... |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Mike 5:) |
19 |
|
20 |
The check was committed to repoman right after the meeting. But as there |
21 |
hasn't been a release since it's not globally available. zmedico: Is |
22 |
there a new release coming or should a new revision be made? |
23 |
|
24 |
Also prepalldocs was commented from eutils.eclass for now as it solves |
25 |
nothing and besides the already discovered x-modular.eclass bug we can't |
26 |
be sure if there is more. This was done with blessing from dev-zero and |
27 |
lu_zero so we have required council power for express action. |
28 |
|
29 |
20:13 <@Betelgeuse> lu_zero, dev-zero: Shouldn't we nuke prepalldocs |
30 |
from eutils.eclass? |
31 |
20:13 <@dev-zero> Betelgeuse: yes |
32 |
20:15 <@lu_zero> Betelgeuse if the implementation is broken I don't see |
33 |
why not (given portage should still provide one) |
34 |
|
35 |
Regards, |
36 |
Petteri |