| 1 |
On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 4 |
>> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first |
| 6 |
>>> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other |
| 7 |
>>> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can |
| 8 |
>>> think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more. Is it really |
| 9 |
>>> scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system into |
| 10 |
>>> multiple different virtuals like this? |
| 11 |
>> Clever idea, actually, though I'd be interested in whether anybody |
| 12 |
>> else can think of any unintended consequences. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> My objection to what happened with the introduction of these virtuals |
| 15 |
> was that they directly affected eudev and yet the eudev team was not |
| 16 |
> consulted. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
eudev developer was contacted before any real impact on tree was made to |
| 19 |
make an ebuild-only change to build multilib libgudev like udev and systemd |
| 20 |
does |
| 21 |
at which point any objections could have been raised, instead, like |
| 22 |
expected, the version of eudev was provided to move forward, and we did |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
so I don't agree with your assesment of not being consulted, when you were |
Archives