| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:00PM -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
| 2 |
> If udev is troublesome, then try eudev. You might even be able to get |
| 3 |
> the devs working on it to make it EAPI 5. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I think it needs to be the whole udev ecosystem, since mesa (which |
| 6 |
caused #454184) only depends on virtual/udev. We need the ABI |
| 7 |
slotting to pass all the way through. That means: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
gbm? ( virtual/udev:= ) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
in mesa and something like |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>=sys-fs/udev-197-r8:=[gudev?,…] |
| 14 |
>=sys-apps/systemd-198-r5:=[gudev?, |
| 15 |
kmod? ( >=sys-fs/eudev-1_beta2-r2:=[modutils,…] ) |
| 16 |
!kmod? ( >=sys-fs/eudev-1_beta2-r2:=[gudev?,…] ) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
in virtual/udev-197-r2. With sub-slotting in the different |
| 19 |
implementation ebuilds. The trouble is that sys-fs/udev installs both |
| 20 |
libsystemd-daemon and libudev, which are versioned separately. This |
| 21 |
means you need virtuals for each ABI [1]. With a new virtual/udev-abi |
| 22 |
and virtual/systemd-daemon-abi, you'd need to add virtual/udev-abi as |
| 23 |
a dependency for mesa (otherwise, only virtual/udev would be rebuilt |
| 24 |
on a libudev version bump :p). It's not clear to me how to handle the |
| 25 |
udev multiplexing in virtual/udev-abi. I suppose there should be |
| 26 |
separate versions for both systemd and eudev, but I'm still working |
| 27 |
out the details. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
However, none of this is really helping get a catalyst release out the |
| 30 |
door. jmbsvicetto's recent patches are dealing with two unrelated |
| 31 |
issues: preserved-libs (3b83a6c, 462348d, and f6ad384) and stale |
| 32 |
binpkgs (6c0a577). I'm only taking issue with 6c0a577 (and its |
| 33 |
predecessor e7ea409). Also, 6c0a577 is a small enough change that I'm |
| 34 |
fine with reverting that as well if I can talk folks over to my |
| 35 |
binpkg-blacklist approach (after the release). It would have been |
| 36 |
nice if the commit message for 6c0a577 explained how it was different |
| 37 |
from dol-sen's earlier proposal [2], as I suggested when the patch was |
| 38 |
floated on gentoo-catalyst@. It would also have been nice if we'd |
| 39 |
caught the s/;/:/ typo in 462348d during ML review, but I didn't. Now |
| 40 |
that these patches have landed in `master`, I think we should just |
| 41 |
roll with them and cut a new release :p. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
We will certainly not have a fix for stale binpkgs in the near future, |
| 44 |
other than disabling pkgcache. I'm fine debating the best catalyst |
| 45 |
workaround, but if y'all don't agree with me, I'm not going to blow |
| 46 |
up ;). |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Cheers, |
| 49 |
Trevor |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
[1]: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Sub-slots_and_Slot-Operators#Multiple_ABIs_for_X.Org |
| 52 |
[2]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.catalyst/2166/ |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 56 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives