On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:18:06 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:10:33 -0500 > Michael Sterrett <mr_bon...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > So everybody who emerges gnupg since this change is wasting space > > for no good reason. > > If you care about a couple of hundred kilobytes, relying upon > individual ebuilds to ask the package manager to compress > documentation in some arbitrary manner is the wrong solution. Then, for the nth time, what would be the good solution? How would one convert prepalldocs usage to something allowed? I've failed to find anything about it in the relevant bug and the only answer I've seen is "remove it". You can count on me for marking any prepalldocs removal bug I'll be the assignee as wontfix as long as there won't be any alternative solution. Note that I would consider a viable solution banning prepalldocs and simply removing it if portage was compressing docs by its own or calling prepalldocs after src_install... but then IMHO that's the removal of prepalldocs that would require an EAPI bump not its reintroduction. Regards, Alexis.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
