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 1SoyIO-0003XJ-NK for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:53:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 290E5E0713; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:53:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B094E06F7 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:52:29 +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 CA5B41B4018; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:52:37 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org, tommy@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/libudev Message-ID: <20120711165237.23e02b2d@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20120710171800.493a7c4c@pomiocik.lan> <4FFC813B.7090501@gentoo.org> <20120711160946.2cb6fe64@pomiocik.lan> 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_/rb36UCqR80DW_t1EwVhaBlj"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 4ecc90b7-7fa6-4e1f-91c4-22d18fefd1eb X-Archives-Hash: 413e015b441d9abae6f1ba747e61fe26 --Sig_/rb36UCqR80DW_t1EwVhaBlj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:35:32 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200 > > Thomas Sachau wrote: > >> 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? > > >=20 > It sounds like we have two packages that COULD provide udev - udev and > systemd. If we decide for both of them to provide udev then we need a > virtual and they need to block (which should make switching more fun). > If we decide to keep using the udev package to install udev then we > don't need a virtual. No, switching is no fun. It's plain simple with weak blockers. It's even their purpose. =20 > I'd view this like the split kde ebuilds. Upstream ships a monster > tarball, and we install it in chunks. Just because upstream ships > both packages together doesn't require us to install them together. > From a code-reuse standpoint and ease of transition standpoint it > makes sense to keep them split, as long as we can have everybody > continue to use the same udev codebase. Are you aware how much additional code and maintenance does keeping two hacked build systems introduce? One of things I don't want to do is keeping the list of *all other* systemd targets up-to-date, and installing them all by hand. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/rb36UCqR80DW_t1EwVhaBlj 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/9kzUACgkQfXuS5UK5QB0szwP8CIxyuCzL9PkQye+mdCawpKHZ +7L1p1s9XUWGi7gaE8nYcNPdD1i80DKusSzm2EzQqnp4M33Gw7jM4oN6BmkmGf8B cXRQlfwQvAw0LQhAbH/7h2FHFNzJttO8+8qukBRuZD7+2fcb25O3RGUMS7gRGQDE jfkHeelBIjQ7FvZmTLQ= =JTip -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/rb36UCqR80DW_t1EwVhaBlj--