On 10/01/2018 11:23 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 10/01/2018 11:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 19:23 +0200, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote:
>>> On Montag, 1. Oktober 2018 17:48:16 CEST Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 08:19 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>>> /usr/share/doc level directories
>>>>> ================================
>>>>> /usr/share/doc/${PF}
>>>>>
>>>>> The first bug report [2] is for qt-core, which installs documentation
>>>>> into /usr/share/doc/${PN}-${PV} instead of /usr/share/doc/${PF} (${PF}
>>>>> includes ebuild revision such as -r1, -r2, and so on).
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. There's no /usr/share/doc/qtcore-5.11.1 on my system.
>>>
>>> This is coming from dev-qt/qt-docs.
>>
>> Nope, still not /usr/share/doc/qt*core*-...
>>
>>> It is a problem because any other package
>>> building QCH API docs with cross-references to Qt API needs to install
>>> below
>>> this path, and will generate the same QA warning (currently
>>> kde-frameworks/*
>>> does this).
>>
>> Yes. That is why I believe that hardcoding the exception in every
>> package is simply wrong. Wouldn't it be cleaner to account for the path
>> in the QA check?
>
> There may be cases where we want to fix the ebuild to use
> /usr/share/doc/${PF} though, right?Until this QA check has adjustable whitelist support, we can consider it an unstable work in progress. Therefore, I'd like for the QA team to move it gentoo/metadata/install-qa-check.d/08gentoo-paths until it has matured. It's safe to commit it to the gentoo repository now, and it will become active when portage's internal copy is removed. I've filed this bug report to track progress: https://bugs.gentoo.org/667604 -- Thanks, Zac
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
