From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FiVSl-0004Bv-MJ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 11:54:12 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4NBs6Xi006929; Tue, 23 May 2006 11:54:06 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4NBp0DD003216 for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 11:51:00 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A447A644F8 for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 11:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03373-08 for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 11:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (unknown [84.29.235.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E9C64502 for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 11:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 13:52:12 +0200 From: Harald van =?utf-8?Q?D=C4=B3k?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving virtual/eject to new-style virtual Message-ID: <20060523115212.GA8696@gentoo.org> References: <200605231238.56089@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20060523112539.GA5873@gentoo.org> <200605231335.49738@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200605231335.49738@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.138 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.585, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=2.046] X-Spam-Score: -1.138 X-Spam-Level: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k4NBs6ZU006929 X-Archives-Salt: e9460cb0-1d89-41c3-b439-fd3c65a1ca28 X-Archives-Hash: 0ba6da1bf3ce04112143e4d40de305e6 On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:35:49PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten=C3=B2 = wrote: > On Tuesday 23 May 2006 13:25, Harald van D=C4=B3k wrote: > > How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and = the > > usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actual= ly > > provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how is this > > easier to maintain than a "virtual/eject sys-block/unieject" entry in > > the default-bsd profile? > I should have explained what my whole plan was, probably :) >=20 > Currently there are things provided by sys-apps/eject that are not avai= lable=20 > on either unieject or eject-bsd.. the final idea was, from my part, to=20 > identify those features in three versions "0a 0b 0c" (the 0 version is = to=20 > avoid collisions between virtual/eject and sys-apps/eject binpks). >=20 > 0a would be simply the basic eject command, what it is now. > 0b would be basic eject + --trayclose (needed by rip for instance) > 0c would be ability to eject usb/scsi devices. >=20 > The first case is the dependency as it is now, the second is eject or=20 > unieject, the third would be just eject and thus not keyworded ~x86-fbs= d at=20 > all. >=20 > When I'll be able to provide 0c features in unieject, I'd add that to 0= c. >=20 > The need for usb/scsi eject is given by libgpod and related :) Thanks for the explanation. It seems sane enough, at least to me, now :) --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list