[gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs

[gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1471 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs

[Mike Auty]

-----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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1569 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] About prepalldocs

[Zac Medico]

-----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-----