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 B656613800E for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:45:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9531FE06B7; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:45:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F95AE0595 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yhp26 with SMTP id 26so2751994yhp.40 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:44:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=69RqKFTGr8XWj85dnIhRYXomayiTOqJ3s7v2guFlFNE=; b=UhvaANacvTZaL015v30lHyRHgq5Osp/732jTHSWysl5mlAFWoMt5eB4EDSO/+WJ4em w+i4cWb5HjrUov/XqWj6WbHro0iCz85qoV95hkYtrMV9BbD+8geni3/cI7Jr1bv8LSE6 2aGB/KymYQrVheIXzU9c0XsZT+a7sAWxO3+YbKMl2DyB3abpapOEWmcaaJQDcXRnYKeC JsE5NJiQnGIlXqCCqjVXaGcmjZ2jS2vO2IEDB1l6+eqf4K87CdOTI/OwZXtNhPKyA3Vk G7BP4ilwa4f1rXSgZ78axeh6YGi1ScFu9ONEc1DyGwa3PqrLwuYQiEtP5L66judAlX37 V9JA== 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 Received: by 10.50.207.40 with SMTP id lt8mr229535igc.16.1343339086700; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.115.133 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:44:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120711230404.3876a4e6@pomiocik.lan> References: <20120710171800.493a7c4c@pomiocik.lan> <4FFC813B.7090501@gentoo.org> <20120711160946.2cb6fe64@pomiocik.lan> <4FFDC54A.7010505@gentoo.org> <20120711230404.3876a4e6@pomiocik.lan> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:44:46 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/libudev From: Peter Alfredsen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 5fd7ba66-3b56-48f4-b2ac-d8b39f568222 X-Archives-Hash: 0276ecdae79fd8e12b5bf47d4d207508 On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:27:41 -0400 > Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is the best >> way to go here. > > A consolidated package means that: > > - every change made by udev developers would have to be reviewed by > systemd team to make sure it doesn't break systemd. udev developers > don't use systemd; > - every change made by systemd developers would have to be reviewed by > udev team to make sure it doesn't break openrc. systemd developers > usually don't run openrc; > - udev developers will force me to use eclasses they like and force > their coding style on me; > - i will force eclasses I like and my coding style on udev developers; > - new udev wouldn't be able to be stabilized without systemd being > stabilized at the same time (and I don't really think systemd is in > any condition to go stable), > - there will be a few random flags which will either work or not, > depending on a state of magical switch flag, > - and after all, the ebuild will be basically one big use-conditional. So, since this is blocking up development and people actually solving things, could we just have virtual/udev and be done with it? Upstream obviously reneged on their promise to make the component parts buildable separately, so the virtual seems like the only sane choice right now. /Peter