Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving virtual/eject to new-style virtual

["Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1358 bytes --]

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 13:25, Harald van Dijk 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 actually
> 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 :)

Currently there are things provided by sys-apps/eject that are not available 
on either unieject or eject-bsd.. the final idea was, from my part, to 
identify those features in three versions "0a 0b 0c" (the 0 version is to 
avoid collisions between virtual/eject and sys-apps/eject binpks).

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.

The first case is the dependency as it is now, the second is eject or 
unieject, the third would be just eject and thus not keyworded ~x86-fbsd at 
all.

When I'll be able to provide 0c features in unieject, I'd add that to 0c.

The need for usb/scsi eject is given by libgpod and related :)

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]