[gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmcaWIACgkQu7rWomwgFXomBACeLkFewJjIieT0oA5uMcSWbJyO dO4AoKhF0PGFz//jWIH1FxhidJ6c9CEx =AKtW -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs
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
Re: [gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Petteri Räty wrote: 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? I expect to do a release sometime this weekend, probably Friday or Saturday. - -- Thanks, Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmccN8ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNKhgCfTQGjZy6oyle3DjrpJQ5GL+1G T7gAn0pUTA4KNhpqHb3aZqldcP8flAde =8MfA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
