Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 03/29/2014 09:23 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 08:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>> On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
>>>> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote:
>>>>> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first
>>>>> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up.  How many other
>>>>> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can
>>>>> think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more.  Is it really
>>>>> scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system
>>>>> into
>>>>> multiple different virtuals like this?
>>>> Clever idea, actually, though I'd be interested in whether anybody
>>>> else can think of any unintended consequences.
>>>>
>>> My objection to what happened with the introduction of these virtuals
>>> was that they directly affected eudev and yet the eudev team was not
>>> consulted.
>> eudev developer was contacted before any real impact on tree was made to
>> make an ebuild-only change to build multilib libgudev like udev and
>> systemd
>> does
>> at which point any objections could have been raised, instead, like
>> expected, the version of eudev was provided to move forward, and we did
>>
>> so I don't agree with your assesment of not being consulted, when you
>> were
>>
> Not before the decision was made to go ahead with the change.
> Consulting means input before the decision.
>
Following up on this, do you have any objection to me co-maintianing 
those virtuals?

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@g.o
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA