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 A8EA51387FD for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 130A6E09BA; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A2F5E09AD for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:29:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6424233FD85 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:29:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5336BCD1.7070002@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:30:09 -0400 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 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] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev References: <5335EE26.1010606@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b9d63203-2472-4e80-a968-3f89b66dcabd X-Archives-Hash: e148cf04b094208c20f0e7c18f7bc767 On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina > wrote: >> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first >> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other >> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can >> think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more. Is it really >> scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system into >> multiple different virtuals like this? > Clever idea, actually, though I'd be interested in whether anybody > else can think of any unintended consequences. > My objection to what happened with the introduction of these virtuals was that they directly affected eudev and yet the eudev team was not consulted. The question of "unintended consequences" is precisely why design decisions should be discussed on this list. The following bug shows who was invovled in the discussion: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=506034. (I just added the eudev team but it was not there until just now.) We now face similar design idiosyncrasies with respect to a request that ABI information be included in CHOSTs for MIPS which does not conform to gnuconfig standards. To avoid engineering ourselves into corners, we really need to have as many smart people looking at a design change as possible before it is implemented, not after. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA