| 1 |
On 23/04/2010 12:20, Sergey Mironov wrote: |
| 2 |
> My system doesn't have udev. It has mdev from busybox. Openct docs |
| 3 |
> says that mdev is ok, so should i register an ebuild-bug and suggest |
| 4 |
> something like 'udev useflag'? There are util-linux dependencies, |
| 5 |
> which are also incompatible with busybox. I am in doubt. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The "gentoo" way as near as I can see is via virtual packages, eg if |
| 10 |
there are three cron options then you install virtual/cron and various |
| 11 |
packages then provide that dependency. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
With udev it's a little harder to fit it into that mould (actually same |
| 14 |
with all busybox utils) because basically bb can provide different |
| 15 |
things depending on config... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think it's a hard problem to solve and a small number of affected |
| 18 |
users. Probably as a workaround you should simply set package.provided |
| 19 |
to claim you have installed udev and then all the dependencies are |
| 20 |
effectively assumed to be solved. Of course this will break down on |
| 21 |
some package that really does need proper udev, but it's probably |
| 22 |
acceptable? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
A use flag is probably inappropriate because that's usually used to |
| 25 |
indicate whether you want that functionality compiled or removed from a |
| 26 |
given package |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I guess there must be some -arm overlay that you can base from and |
| 29 |
contribute to? Anyone? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Good luck |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ed W |
Archives