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 9F0021381F3 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:37:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2C0A21C006; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:36:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6F4FE0642 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C971C33DC93 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:36:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.389 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.363, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.024, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JneMadZ7bvo4 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936ED33DC8D for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tk39J-0008Vx-QK for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:36:13 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:36:13 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:36:13 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev distro vs upstream choices Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:35:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20121215230208.GA31481@linux1> <50CD116E.2070706@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT 04c43ec /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: 25633ea6-cc9d-42d2-8fe7-785e9e56a1c3 X-Archives-Hash: 2c3b257841e09ee5de8d1cfae39bf68b Richard Yao posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:10:22 -0500 as excerpted: > On 12/15/2012 06:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> All, >> >> what are the specific choices I made in udev that are distro choices vs >> upstream choices. People have said to me a couple of times that there >> were choices I made that are not upstream choices. If there is >> something I can undo in udev to make it easier for us I will do that; >> I'm just not clear on what that is. > Many people would like sys-fs/udev to use the old paths in / instead of > /usr. That is the single biggest complaint people seem to have. That matches my read, as well. In particular, that matches the claim that it's a distro packaging choice. Didn't one of Greg's posts specifically mention configure paths, or was that someone else's? Either way, that's the single specific I've seen that came to mind when I later read the claim that it's more a matter of gentoo's udev packaging choices, than of upstream. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman