From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2E9138010 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B418B21C15F; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21EA721C157 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.169.32.2] (212-226-75-61-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [212.226.75.61]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A41B33D814 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5090D897.9000707@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:51:51 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120916 Thunderbird/15.0.1 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 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/eclass: udev.eclass References: <20121030190839.A9A3D21600@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <20121030191725.GC809@gentoo.org> <20121030211657.GE809@gentoo.org> <509044F9.5080901@gentoo.org> <20121031075015.GG809@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20121031075015.GG809@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c38cc167-d6ae-48ec-b76d-d7ee9a8ee2f8 X-Archives-Hash: efa5cdaccac863d6e5dc0f39b3186b57 On 31/10/12 09:50, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 30-10-2012 23:22:01 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> So exactly what is (your) problem with the current eclass now? > > Your eclass pretends to support Prefix, but it is broken in that > respect, and because some other eclass does it the same way (your > claim), you refuse to fix it. > > I'm not refusing anything. I don't do prefix and I'm _always_ expecting a patch from prefix@ for prefix issues. Thanks for volunteering. I'll be looking forward in seeing the patch. - Samuli