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 369471387FD for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E3C36E0A5A; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:03:18 +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 CCC56E0A52 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.175.71.44] (85-76-53-111-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.53.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8AB233FC0C for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 13:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5336C359.30002@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:58:01 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen 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> <5336BCD1.7070002@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <5336BCD1.7070002@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6c063e07-35b0-4531-a66d-c06f1e440261 X-Archives-Hash: 3a0539f6d792f51d36bf6de98d722938 On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > 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. eudev developer was contacted before any real impact on tree was made to make an ebuild-only change to build multilib libgudev like udev and systemd does at which point any objections could have been raised, instead, like expected, the version of eudev was provided to move forward, and we did so I don't agree with your assesment of not being consulted, when you were