>>>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Alexis Ballier wrote: > 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. I think a viable solution would consist of two parts: 1. Add some exclude mechanism to prepalldocs, as suggested in bug 164114 [1]. 2. Have Portage call prepalldocs by default (in prepall). This way, everything installed under /usr/share/doc would be compressed by default (honouring the user's setting of PORTAGE_COMPRESS). Any package that needs literal, uncompressed files in /usr/share/doc could specify this via the exclude mechanism. Obviously, this is an incompatible change and would require an EAPI bump. Ulrich [1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164114>
