| 1 |
On 18/07/14 23:58, Georg Rudoy wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2014-07-19 0:19 GMT+04:00 Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>: |
| 3 |
>> So, I propose: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> upower with short generic description of "Support for power management" |
| 6 |
>> udisks with short generic description of "Support for storage management" |
| 7 |
> Being a proxy maint of lc-vrooby, I support this proposal. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Also, have you considered udisks2? For example, lc-vrooby can use any |
| 10 |
> of udisks:0 and udisks:2, but the rdeps that get pulled and the |
| 11 |
> backends that get compiled are controlled by the flags. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There should be no separate USE flags for udisks:0 and udisks:2. They can |
| 15 |
be installed *and* ran at the same time. |
| 16 |
If both are supported, and it's a compile time option, :2 should be forced |
| 17 |
If both are supported, and they can be automatically detected at |
| 18 |
runtime, || ( sys-fs/udisks:2 sys-fs/udisks:0 ) syntax |
| 19 |
should be used |
| 20 |
We have a Tracker open for migrating to udisks:2 and adding udisks:0 |
| 21 |
support is a bug (regression) |
Archives