Summary: | [Future EAPI] Provide a function, like dodocs(), to process DOCS= without calling `default` | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Hosted Projects | Reporter: | Samuli Suominen (RETIRED) <ssuominen> |
Component: | PMS/EAPI | Assignee: | Package Manager Specification <pms> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | esigra, hasufell, jlec, mgorny |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
See Also: |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364343 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394211 |
||
Whiteboard: | in-eapi-6 | ||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 174380, 483304 |
Description
Samuli Suominen (RETIRED)
![]() I was referring to the unhandled bug 364343 from which we are still suffering, and the problem has become more wide spread. Can we extend the dodoc command? If called without any args, it could behave like the src_install default. (In reply to comment #2) > Can we extend the dodoc command? If called without any args, it could behave > like the src_install default. Please don't. I think that would be almost like putting two different PMS sections together. (In reply to comment #2) > Can we extend the dodoc command? If called without any args, it could behave > like the src_install default. sounds good to me, dodoc or dodocs, that's just bikeshedding, both are acceptable imho would be nice to get this bug finally handled, the use of calling `default` in ebuilds around the tree is increasing by the day bug 364343 can be closed with wontfix then, imho (In reply to comment #4) > sounds good to me, dodoc or dodocs, that's just bikeshedding, both are > acceptable imho Call it bikeshedding, but the other do* commands accept a list of arguments, and are typically paired with a new* command. This is not the case here. Also having both "dodoc" and "dodocs" is confusing. edocs? einstalldocs? (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > sounds good to me, dodoc or dodocs, that's just bikeshedding, both are > > acceptable imho > > Call it bikeshedding, but the other do* commands accept a list of arguments, > and are typically paired with a new* command. This is not the case here. > Also having both "dodoc" and "dodocs" is confusing. > > edocs? einstalldocs? if it has to be one of those twos, please keep it short, so then edocs but i still like dodocs much more and find it less confusing *** Bug 468310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |