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 1SpN1C-0007mR-5y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:17:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 35A33E0495; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:17:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0528EE030B for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eaae12 with SMTP id e12so810435eaa.40 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:16:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gc00NNDXqkMMUWBF4pUfiiSC5gNjRVw13MhbC9o/Glg=; b=uvdVDdbS9YYdchrmCHa3Q0b7EiTdzLj1fBwoS/agZ715Gp8/YkDqNMlTGu4lh3Izgn KjVfaIFvr9QQS9COXkP+O3ORx/N/SDMnyg/eup5z0jMPIY2NCpXHbAOcYU/kJxwjwHMN DfZKbYz5sDLLIOqZQDuuzJ7XpscQ3giDf1jOxqXybhlFsEXhmWMI2B0751q4yaqsjtP+ 34BMYVt+YMFYzfef3h0HNWBTcFf9s1IK0n7nXHcqWwy9mPmKNoo+nvX615DVcInXZMTW ChbomVN8wCwZMWRQzIK0DtEU2qR1/Epj5ksf9pAu2DTgCE5ts+M+4IKpUqxaZS5j4KcU aXvA== Received: by 10.14.95.141 with SMTP id p13mr1602610eef.94.1342113391186; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:16:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1418:211::2:18? ([2001:1418:211::2:18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t3sm17430077eeb.15.2012.07.12.10.16.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FFF066A.5000807@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:16:26 +0200 From: "vivo75@gmail.com" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.5) Gecko/20120626 Thunderbird/10.0.5 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: Mike Gilbert Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/libudev References: <20120710171800.493a7c4c@pomiocik.lan> <4FFC813B.7090501@gentoo.org> <20120711160946.2cb6fe64@pomiocik.lan> <4FFDC54A.7010505@gentoo.org> <20120711195423.GA26913@linux1> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: cc14ea32-0af9-42fc-bb01-b8f2e2caa3d4 X-Archives-Hash: f1dfa0031c839a0fdb7c9ce1b9e5af80 Il 11/07/2012 22:33, Mike Gilbert ha scritto: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:27:41PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> Just to put a number to this, there are currently 126 packages in the >>> tree with a dependency on sys-fs/udev. >>> >>> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is the best >>> way to go here. Short of that, the virtual + blockers seems like an >>> acceptable solution. >> Thinking on this, I agree with Mike here, and to make it easier for >> maintainers so they don't have to change their dependencies, it should >> be a udev ebuild with a systemd use flag. >> > An alternative to the funky udev[systemd] solution would be to replace > the entire udev ebuild with RDEPEND="sys-apps/systemd", and implement > the requisite logic in the systemd ebuild. This would effectively make > udev a virtual package without the need to modify any other packages. Long time ago portage managed virtual/* ebuilds differently from the others, it may be wise to ask to the portage developers if that's still the case and why/what is done.