| 1 |
On 29/03/14 15:24, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/29/2014 09:23 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/29/2014 08:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 7 |
>>>>> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>>> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first |
| 9 |
>>>>>> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other |
| 10 |
>>>>>> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can |
| 11 |
>>>>>> think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more. Is it really |
| 12 |
>>>>>> scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system |
| 13 |
>>>>>> into |
| 14 |
>>>>>> multiple different virtuals like this? |
| 15 |
>>>>> Clever idea, actually, though I'd be interested in whether anybody |
| 16 |
>>>>> else can think of any unintended consequences. |
| 17 |
>>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>> My objection to what happened with the introduction of these virtuals |
| 19 |
>>>> was that they directly affected eudev and yet the eudev team was not |
| 20 |
>>>> consulted. |
| 21 |
>>> eudev developer was contacted before any real impact on tree was |
| 22 |
>>> made to |
| 23 |
>>> make an ebuild-only change to build multilib libgudev like udev and |
| 24 |
>>> systemd |
| 25 |
>>> does |
| 26 |
>>> at which point any objections could have been raised, instead, like |
| 27 |
>>> expected, the version of eudev was provided to move forward, and we did |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>>> so I don't agree with your assesment of not being consulted, when |
| 30 |
>>> you were |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>> Not before the decision was made to go ahead with the change. |
| 33 |
>> Consulting means input before the decision. |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
> Following up on this, do you have any objection to me co-maintianing |
| 36 |
> those virtuals? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
With the inappropiate feedback I got from yesterday from you in |
| 40 |
#gentoo-dev, I'm not sure you are the best fit |
| 41 |
for maintaining any of these. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
However, I suppose both of eudev@g.o and systemd@g.o |
| 44 |
should still be in metadata.xml of |
| 45 |
the virtuals as co-maintainers. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
But it doesn't mean you get to do dramatical changes to them without |
| 48 |
first discussing it with the main providers |
| 49 |
maintainers, that is, sys-fs/udev, and WilliamH and me. Dramatical |
| 50 |
changes, such as unannouncedly reverting |
| 51 |
others changes, masking them, etc. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I shouldn't even be needing to tell any of this, as common sense should |
| 54 |
prevail, but lately it has been lost, |
| 55 |
so covering basis. Don't take insult of it. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
+1 for adding systemd and eudev to metadata.xml |
Archives