From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC3C13877A for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E2C5E09AE; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7169CE095A for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:54:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s7UCsklh002026 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:54:46 +0200 Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.8/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s7UCsjge029923; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:54:45 +0200 Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s7UCsjd6029918; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:54:45 +0200 Message-ID: <21505.51605.567727.858150@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:54:45 +0200 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-09-09 In-Reply-To: <21500.62389.550418.564508@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <21500.62389.550418.564508@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp+signed+76KtcEJ2xn/s/sr"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 65f3263f-02c9-463f-9049-9e1a4ed64ec2 X-Archives-Hash: 0ac51471c7e665c1eea33d4f38e7fd82 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --pgp+signed+76KtcEJ2xn/s/sr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 --pgp+signed+76KtcEJ2xn/s/sr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUAcmJAAoJEMMJBoUcYcJziAkH/2yIQNfOJ1hvtckMbo4EKGby 0PWdAtLcLcuH9XOH/dLVr0KrseYqLJyrLqM6MD3/l+i8qQ8eF1pUJXQQgpMfEIfQ ZVVvl0W5M9w+A+kQXoBK7bd7P0avqpU53Da12G33cE6vwApBQRXQfN0WnVtWcfQ/ CFFYp8bqkTHRZBw0DemFi35THXbjaC8odhgU7u3PG5a88vg8QElcbx5f1pg9Sf/m DfO1wxTOGqKVhx/aH5jjf1FrzDS2vbS4KT11zRgJajqpIP1qHg7LYymCinAJQJ21 roub59qveFAcSI+Sc4KXSuyLX12WVixUuYpvGXUIDVRzw48ElgBYPJYXGuNEgQQ= =RH54 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp+signed+76KtcEJ2xn/s/sr--