On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:35:44PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 10:03 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:10:22PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 12/15/2012 06:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> what are the specific choices I made in udev that are distro choices vs
> >>> upstream choices. People have said to me a couple of times that there
> >>> were choices I made that are not upstream choices. If there is something
> >>> I can undo in udev to make it easier for us I will do that; I'm just not
> >>> clear on what that is.
> >>>
> >>> William
> >>>
> >>
> >> Many people would like sys-fs/udev to use the old paths in / instead of
> >> /usr. That is the single biggest complaint people seem to have.
> > 
> > If you mean adjusting the ./configure options I can look into that.
> > 
> > William
> > 
> 
> If adjust the configure options, things will go back into /, but rules
> and helpers installed into in /usr/lib/udev would no longer be read. You
> will need a small patch to fix that. You should be able to port the
> following patch from eudev to fix that:
> 
> https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commit/036bc1a9509f5cf495817bc33624b8a4069e9f9f
> 
> It is similar to the existing patches that are used to look in /.

Actually that brings up the question of whether we want to keep
/usr/lib/udev/* at all. That was introduced because of the choice I
originally made, so if we undo that choice, we can forget about reading
from there since our ebuilds have been ported to use the udev eclass to
figure out where to install that information right?

William