Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/libudev

[Thomas Sachau]

Michał Górny schrieb:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:33:10 +0200
> Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny schrieb:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:24:27 -0500
>>> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>> Hello, all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
>>>>> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
>>>>> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for
>>>>> libudev which would pull in either of those two.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are three USE flags used in conditionals when depending on
>>>>> udev:
>>>>> - gudev - for glib wrapper on udev,
>>>>> - hwdb - to pull in hwids,
>>>>> - static-libs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag,
>>>>> and the third was unconditional.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm attaching an example virtual/libudev which does the job.
>>>>> Sadly, because of the 'extras' compatibility it's a big ugly
>>>>> conditional.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to ask here, because of the discussion on IRC, that you
>>>> not commit this yet. There are issues still we need to work out wrt
>>>> packaging systemd and udev.
>>>
>>> So, can I commit the virtual and finally start fixing people's
>>> systems or are we going to discuss this to the day when other
>>> options are no longer a possibility and virtual will be necessary?
>>>
>>> You seem still not to understand that upstream *does not care*.
>>> And either way, merging udev and systemd will result that two, four
>>> or six months from now users will need to manually re-adjust their
>>> @world to have the packages split again.
>>>
>>
>> I wrote it the last time you asked and i write it this time again: NO!
>>
>> Beside that, the last time i wrote you a mail about this topic, where
>> you did not respond at all. So please read it again and answer it.
>> Such change should be properly checked, before we even think about
>> the idea of such a switch.
>
> I'm pretty sure I replied to every mail I got from you.
>
> And please remind me: what is your relevance to systemd or udev? What
> do you know about history of those packages?
>

Please keep this on a technical level, neither relevance nor knowledge
about history should matter here.

Since you seem to have missed or forgotten my mails, let me copy it here
again for you:

>> As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the
>> udev files with systemd, which is the beginning for the block and the
>> virtual. So we should first sort that point out, before we even start
>> to think about an ebuild for an udev virtual.
>
> Do you have a technical or policy reason prohibiting me from maintaining
> a systemd ebuild following the upstream policies?

How about this simple one: The udev ebuild does already install udev, so
why should we have another package also installing the same thing,
resulting in a blocker, the need to switch from one package to another
and the need for package maintainers to switch their dependencies?

Since William already said, that he will move the udev installation to
/usr/lib, i dont see any technical reason left to not simply depend on
the udev ebuild.
And if you fear issues about not knowing which parts to install, then
just check the files installed by the udev ebuild, remove them from your
systemd ebuild and you are done.
>
>> So for now: A clear no, i am against adding a virtual/libudev ebuild.
>
> Please give the rationale.

I did above. So if you still want to install udev yourself, please give
the rationale for doing so. And neither upstream naming nor a big
upstream tarball nor the Makefile do force this, so please exclude those
points.





-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer