| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200 |
| 2 |
Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 5 |
> > Hello, all. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two |
| 8 |
> > libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making |
| 9 |
> > the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for |
| 10 |
> > libudev which would pull in either of those two. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > There are three USE flags used in conditionals when depending on |
| 13 |
> > udev: |
| 14 |
> > - gudev - for glib wrapper on udev, |
| 15 |
> > - hwdb - to pull in hwids, |
| 16 |
> > - static-libs. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag, |
| 19 |
> > and the third was unconditional. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > I'm attaching an example virtual/libudev which does the job. Sadly, |
| 22 |
> > because of the 'extras' compatibility it's a big ugly conditional. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > An alternative would be to provide separate virtual/libudev |
| 25 |
> > and virtual/libgudev; and maybe changing ebuilds not to depend on |
| 26 |
> > [hwids] but rather pull in sys-apps/hwids directly (since that's |
| 27 |
> > what the flag does). |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > What are you thoughts? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the |
| 32 |
> udev files with systemd, which is the beginning for the block and the |
| 33 |
> virtual. So we should first sort that point out, before we even start |
| 34 |
> to think about an ebuild for an udev virtual. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Do you have a technical or policy reason prohibiting me from maintaining |
| 37 |
a systemd ebuild following the upstream policies? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> So for now: A clear no, i am against adding a virtual/libudev ebuild. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Please give the rationale. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Best regards, |
| 45 |
Michał Górny |
Archives