Mike Auty wrote: > Petteri Räty wrote: >> 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. > > If it's simply discouraged, perhaps a repoman check, and some people to > come forward with a better suggestion is all that's necessary? Once the > new system's in place the repoman check can be made fatal, and suggest > the new mechanism. That would save endless "do/don't" conversations on > -dev. > > It might also be worthwhile the council posting another official mail > clarifying the position, so that we can all get on with our lives. > Those that don't agree with the council can take the normal steps to > bring their disagreement to their attention... > > Mike 5:)
The check was committed to repoman right after the meeting. But as there hasn't been a release since it's not globally available. zmedico: Is there a new release coming or should a new revision be made? Also prepalldocs was commented from eutils.eclass for now as it solves nothing and besides the already discovered x-modular.eclass bug we can't be sure if there is more. This was done with blessing from dev-zero and lu_zero so we have required council power for express action. 20:13 <@Betelgeuse> lu_zero, dev-zero: Shouldn't we nuke prepalldocs from eutils.eclass? 20:13 <@dev-zero> Betelgeuse: yes 20:15 <@lu_zero> Betelgeuse if the implementation is broken I don't see why not (given portage should still provide one) Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
