Am Donnerstag, den 26.03.2009, 19:12 +0100 schrieb Donnie Berkholz: > On 12:25 Mon 23 Mar , Robert Buchholz wrote: > > On Monday 23 March 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote: > > > Spec needed. DOCS or no DOCS? > > > > DOCS, and non-empty default value, please [1]. > > Some eclasses already do this (not base, but others), and if that > > default doesn't cover it for you, the function can be overridden. > > > > Concerning the argument of declarative ebuilds vs. bash-oriented ebuilds > > brought up by Donnie: Our ebuilds always had declarative parts with an > > impact on the PM (e.g. RESTRICT), or on eclasses (WANT_AUTOCONF, or > > look at the games eclass). > > I think if we stay within sane limits[2], following this paradigm is > > going to help developers because more simple cases will be caught by > > the default implementation without adding the complexities of having to > > know tons of (aka "more than one") variables and how they interact. > > I probably would have agreed with you a few EAPIs ago where stuff was > more painful. Take a look at this, though -- it doesn't seem so bad to > me in a non-DOCS, EAPI=3 world: > > src_install() { > default > dodoc foo bar > } > Well, we can just start with such a default src_install and then change it in a later EAPI if we see that it would be more useful to have DOCS="".
But again: eclasses for certain package classes already provide src_install implementations considering DOCS for installing documentation. Which shows that some developers think it's useful.
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil