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 1Sp6eR-0006N2-1w for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:48:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B3A121C002; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com (mail-ob0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98046E07D2 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbup19 with SMTP id up19so2436484obb.40 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:48:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=1ZS5VGgoQY4l6XbPsAlMCmEoroeTTnYfcrU73eqpeR8=; b=y1riMvzPp71fkSHUTI/kVCEJIPtodSsrE4T5Z8IQ9LBldMPPa+gDH9G4z7JxsyWpMK cA9X4aIY2IroVRSzYO2AD9FKy7oWXejuT6C0YvBsvDiCOu/j0gY0k8WsbtXj1LJGYhV2 3bBk70dncGRmanSQUx4F1Fenqxm9/Dvo38GxfrXo3QhGNh5nOTzDhQamV5VBs0FKJ44j yllHJQPDJnSrrkLLyLmZw8XejM/XE8JGde+0AQNHG94D5UXeVh3OWMtBQP29twDYpm0g PlFyu5dA6xmsHY3kevukTyPvW40V3sPBc17y27rJaqXiZygemKJJ/wqYsWlcuZRcw1Hm b3PA== Received: by 10.182.225.100 with SMTP id rj4mr47332609obc.64.1342050491021; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-77-158.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.77.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j10sm1969429oej.10.2012.07.11.16.48.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:48:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:48:08 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: udev-rules.eclass Message-ID: <20120711234808.GB27226@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20120711191142.GA26844@linux1> <20120711165911.1428ddb6@gentoo.org> 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-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/WwmFnJnmDyWGHa4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120711165911.1428ddb6@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 30a2a22d-e7da-4e6b-9add-85c076d0d0f9 X-Archives-Hash: 62879f91edbc9655700b33904769f531 --/WwmFnJnmDyWGHa4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:59:11PM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: > How do you plan to handle the following:=20 > - foo installs an udev rule > - install foo with old udev > - upgrade udev >=20 > are rules installed by foo used by new udev ? No, they wouldn't be; that is a good reason to question the value of the eclass itself. Maybe the correct way to do this is to forget the eclass and just file bugs against packages that break having them move their rules to the new location and set a dependency on the newer udev. This would have to be a rev bump for the broken packages. William >=20 > A. >=20 --/WwmFnJnmDyWGHa4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/+ELgACgkQblQW9DDEZTi9QQCglAjGfbww0bp3hNfKHU33z1eu ze4AnieWsJ+/tsKx1SZxkqM07XLvlzoJ =W260 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/WwmFnJnmDyWGHa4--