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
> 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
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)