From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Soxch-0004ah-Gw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:10:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 544DFE0746; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:10:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F35E073F for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:09:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (178-37-171-8.adsl.inetia.pl [178.37.171.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 484E31B404F; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:09:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:09:46 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: tommy@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/libudev Message-ID: <20120711160946.2cb6fe64@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <4FFC813B.7090501@gentoo.org> References: <20120710171800.493a7c4c@pomiocik.lan> <4FFC813B.7090501@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/yS0=b8axd2YkwOhXyq+l/ON"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: ce5a8fe3-fc97-414e-9ea6-183a4d974c01 X-Archives-Hash: e8f52e22309f38502810f0baac374902 --Sig_/yS0=b8axd2YkwOhXyq+l/ON Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200 Thomas Sachau wrote: > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny schrieb: > > Hello, all. > >=20 > > Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two > > libudev providers: >=3Dsys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making > > the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for > > libudev which would pull in either of those two. > >=20 > > There are three USE flags used in conditionals when depending on > > udev: > > - gudev - for glib wrapper on udev, > > - hwdb - to pull in hwids, > > - static-libs. > >=20 > > The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag, > > and the third was unconditional. > >=20 > > I'm attaching an example virtual/libudev which does the job. Sadly, > > because of the 'extras' compatibility it's a big ugly conditional. > >=20 > > An alternative would be to provide separate virtual/libudev > > and virtual/libgudev; and maybe changing ebuilds not to depend on > > [hwids] but rather pull in sys-apps/hwids directly (since that's > > what the flag does). > >=20 > > What are you thoughts? >=20 > As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the > udev files with systemd, which is the beginning for the block and the > virtual. So we should first sort that point out, before we even start > to think about an ebuild for an udev virtual. Do you have a technical or policy reason prohibiting me from maintaining a systemd ebuild following the upstream policies? > So for now: A clear no, i am against adding a virtual/libudev ebuild. Please give the rationale. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/yS0=b8axd2YkwOhXyq+l/ON Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAk/9iSsACgkQfXuS5UK5QB1ohgQAkkGNsB/bvY57YEwmRu8vDGvl FTC3ZG6AKCJmdZKQqcjtEkhPpyC4J9KkUUb6lyeAzWLImvnJ+FG3f57ZYePoxB1U 7qkDMxXfWMAHFPlOeVBI013fGCKjwzoO7NvGmEXXlObSEt7I34lVwoVNBAec2WYC +hf2McUCW/pK7GUcFcQ= =+oGV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/yS0=b8axd2YkwOhXyq+l/ON--