| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:48:08 -0500 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:59:11PM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > How do you plan to handle the following: |
| 6 |
> > - foo installs an udev rule |
| 7 |
> > - install foo with old udev |
| 8 |
> > - upgrade udev |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > are rules installed by foo used by new udev ? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No, they wouldn't be; that is a good reason to question the value of |
| 13 |
> the eclass itself. Maybe the correct way to do this is to forget the |
| 14 |
> eclass and just file bugs against packages that break having them |
| 15 |
> move their rules to the new location and set a dependency on the |
| 16 |
> newer udev. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This would have to be a rev bump for the broken packages. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
this sounds heavy for only changing the location of a file, but that's |
| 21 |
the only sane solution i can think of :( |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
A. |
Archives