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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-53247-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1Sp42z-0000ID-54
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:02:09 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF2CCE07FE;
	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:01:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BDAE07FD
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:00:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.89.69.133])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: aballier)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDFB11B40C3
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:00:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:59:11 -0400
From: Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: udev-rules.eclass
Message-ID: <20120711165911.1428ddb6@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120711191142.GA26844@linux1>
References: <20120711191142.GA26844@linux1>
Organization: Gentoo
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 2bf18c1b-34f1-4ade-aaa8-21ca71b408f9
X-Archives-Hash: a8541f4d5c9e4e4aef30dbe4e4b497a3

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:11:42 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> All,
> I am about to release udev-186-r1, which will move everything
> currently in /lib/udev to /usr/lib/udev.
> 
> For packages that install udev rules in ${FILESDIR}, we need an eclass
> that tests the version of udev installed on the user's system and
> installs the udev rules in the proper place. I'm not sure how many
> packages do this, so if it is a very small number of packages, it may
> not be worth the eclass. It would be good to discuss that as well as
> reviewing the proposed eclass.

How do you plan to handle the following: 
- foo installs an udev rule
- install foo with old udev
- upgrade udev

are rules installed by foo used by new udev ?

A.