| 1 |
On 07/11/2012 07:25 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/11/2012 07:48 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:59:11PM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> How do you plan to handle the following: |
| 5 |
>>> - foo installs an udev rule |
| 6 |
>>> - install foo with old udev |
| 7 |
>>> - upgrade udev |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> are rules installed by foo used by new udev ? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> No, they wouldn't be; that is a good reason to question the value of the |
| 12 |
>> eclass itself. Maybe the correct way to do this is to forget the eclass |
| 13 |
>> and just file bugs against packages that break having them move their |
| 14 |
>> rules to the new location and set a dependency on the newer udev. |
| 15 |
> Perhaps a new ebuild helper would be best here? It seems no one knows |
| 16 |
> where to install udev rules in the first place (I know I didn't till a |
| 17 |
> recent version of portage yelled at me with a QA warning). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> How about dorule/newrule? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I guess then we'd need the installed udev to set an environment variable |
| 22 |
via /etc/env.d, in order to control the location where the rules are |
| 23 |
installed? |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives