1 |
On 07/13/2012 12:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/13/2012 12:04 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:58:29 +0300 |
4 |
>> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>> On 07/11/2012 10:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
7 |
>>>> All, |
8 |
>>>> I am about to release udev-186-r1, which will move everything |
9 |
>>>> currently in /lib/udev to /usr/lib/udev. |
10 |
>>>> |
11 |
>>>> For packages that install udev rules in ${FILESDIR}, we need an |
12 |
>>>> eclass that tests the version of udev installed on the user's |
13 |
>>>> system and installs the udev rules in the proper place. I'm not |
14 |
>>>> sure how many packages do this, so if it is a very small number of |
15 |
>>>> packages, it may not be worth the eclass. It would be good to |
16 |
>>>> discuss that as well as reviewing the proposed eclass. |
17 |
>>>> |
18 |
>>>> Thanks, |
19 |
>>>> |
20 |
>>>> William |
21 |
>>>> |
22 |
>>> |
23 |
>>> Please don't hardcode the path like this, use pkg-config instead: |
24 |
>>> |
25 |
>>> inherit toolchain-funcs |
26 |
>>> |
27 |
>>> dir="$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --variable=udevdir udev)/rules.d" |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>> Don't forget to add udev to DEPEND of every package using the eclass |
30 |
>> then. Oh wait... |
31 |
>> |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Obviously the pkg-config should be only the primary method and there |
34 |
> should be a fallback, like what has already been posted. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> See attachment. |
37 |
|
38 |
Err, this one. |