Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: udev-rules.eclass

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:47:33 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/07/12 03:17 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:01:21 +0800 Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 July 2012 07:42, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:57:42PM +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Il 11/07/2012 21:11, William Hubbs ha scritto:
> >>>>> I am about to release udev-186-r1, which will move
> >>>>> everything currently in /lib/udev to /usr/lib/udev.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless you're going to establish a symlink, please keep it
> >>>> under p.mask until everything is using some common code —
> >>>> otherwise things _will_ break.
> >>>
> >>> Since multiple packages put things in /lib/udev, I'm not sure
> >>> it is possible to establish a symlink from /lib/udev to
> >>> /usr/lib/udev if that's what you mean; I'll look into it
> >>> though.
> >>
> >> Couldn't you, on udev upgrade, move everything in /lib/udev to
> >> /usr/lib/udev, and then make the symlink? Seems fairly simple to
> >> me, but maybe I'm overlooking something?
> >
> > You are overlooking conflicts introduced through moving files
> > without updating vardb.
> >
>
> There were no vdb issues when baselayout-1 was migrated to
> baselayout-2, and it rewrote a whackload of stuff iirc...
>
> Updating vdb shouldn't be an issue here, as long as pkg_postinst
> doesn't crash mid-stream.  Is the vdb common between package managers
> or does each one have a different solution?

Yes, it is common because for many years people keep noticing it is
common and using that. In other words, for many there is a failing
attempt to stop relying on its format.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny