Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving virtual/eject to new-style virtual

[Harald van Dijk]

On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:35:49PM +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 May 2006 13:25, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the
> > usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually
> > provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how is this
> > easier to maintain than a "virtual/eject sys-block/unieject" entry in
> > the default-bsd profile?
> I should have explained what my whole plan was, probably :)
>
> Currently there are things provided by sys-apps/eject that are not available
> on either unieject or eject-bsd.. the final idea was, from my part, to
> identify those features in three versions "0a 0b 0c" (the 0 version is to
> avoid collisions between virtual/eject and sys-apps/eject binpks).
>
> 0a would be simply the basic eject command, what it is now.
> 0b would be basic eject + --trayclose (needed by rip for instance)
> 0c would be ability to eject usb/scsi devices.
>
> The first case is the dependency as it is now, the second is eject or
> unieject, the third would be just eject and thus not keyworded ~x86-fbsd at
> all.
>
> When I'll be able to provide 0c features in unieject, I'd add that to 0c.
>
> The need for usb/scsi eject is given by libgpod and related :)

Thanks for the explanation. It seems sane enough, at least to me, now :)
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list