[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-09-09

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-09-09

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 451 bytes --]

In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
to discuss or vote on.

Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).

The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 2014-09-02.

Please reply to the gentoo-project list.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-09-09

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 782 bytes --]

I've got an item for the agenda myself:

mgorny started a thread about the future of dohtml on gentoo-dev [1].
Nobody has spoken up in favour of keeping the function.

So, I am asking the council to discuss and vote on the following
questions:
- Should dohtml be banned from the package manager?
- If yes, what would be the time frame? We could ban it in EAPI 6
  already. Alternatively, we could deprecate it now and ban it in some
  later EAPI.
- Do we need a substitute in an eclass? (Note that dohtml in Portage
  is written in Python, so it would have to be rewritten from
  scratch.)
- If the answer to the first question is no: Should einstalldirs in
  EAPI 6 use dodoc -r for HTML_DOCS, instead of dohtml?

Ulrich

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92677

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-09-09

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 232 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> - If the answer to the first question is no: Should einstalldirs in
>   EAPI 6 use dodoc -r for HTML_DOCS, instead of dohtml?

This should read "einstalldocs", not "einstalldirs".

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-09-09

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1137 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-08-30, o godz. 14:54:45
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> I've got an item for the agenda myself:
> 
> mgorny started a thread about the future of dohtml on gentoo-dev [1].
> Nobody has spoken up in favour of keeping the function.
> 
> So, I am asking the council to discuss and vote on the following
> questions:
> - Should dohtml be banned from the package manager?
> - If yes, what would be the time frame? We could ban it in EAPI 6
>   already. Alternatively, we could deprecate it now and ban it in some
>   later EAPI.
> - Do we need a substitute in an eclass? (Note that dohtml in Portage
>   is written in Python, so it would have to be rewritten from
>   scratch.)
> - If the answer to the first question is no: Should einstalldirs in
>   EAPI 6 use dodoc -r for HTML_DOCS, instead of dohtml?

We should also decide how to prepare developers for the change. I think
we could enable warnings for skipped files in earlier EAPIs -- if EAPI
6 will not provide any direct replacement for dohtml, developers may
already start replacing it with dodoc.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]