There seems to be lot of confusion and discussion on the prepalldocs issue so let me try to clear the air and present my own view on the matter. This is effectively what was voted on in the council meeting:
20:35 < dev-zero> prepalldocs should be kept internal and usage should be avoided 20:36 < dev-zero> reason: internal function and change of it's implementation prooves it 20:36 < dev-zero> if someone want's it's functionality he should propose a solution for a future eapi and later 20:39 < dberkholz> ok, so what we're saying is prepalldocs won't be in any current EAPI and needs to be removed from ebuilds. is that accurate? To me it seems that based on summaries and other factors some developers seem to have understood that prepalldocs should immediately be removed from all ebuilds using it. When I voted on the issue it was my intention to put the issue on the table so that a proper technical solution can be achieved. If we just leave it there, it's most likely that nothing will happen. So until we have a decision on what the replacement will be I don't see a need to remove current prepalldocs usage but any new usage must be avoided. So hopefully we will learn from this and can get things communicated better next time. Regards, Petteri PS. Modifying eutils.eclass without review on gentoo-dev is not allowed PPS. Instead of discussion about has happened let's try to refocus energy on writing code instead
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
