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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 03/29/2014 09:33 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 29/03/14 15:24, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> With the inappropiate feedback I got from yesterday from you in
> #gentoo-dev, I'm not sure you are the best fit
> for maintaining any of these.

Others have these logs and are better judges of the responses.  Let the 
community read the responses for themselves.

>
> However, I suppose both of eudev@g.o and systemd@g.o
> should still be in metadata.xml of
> the virtuals as co-maintainers.
>
> But it doesn't mean you get to do dramatical changes to them without
> first discussing it with the main providers
> maintainers, that is, sys-fs/udev, and WilliamH and me. Dramatical
> changes, such as unannouncedly reverting
> others changes, masking them, etc.

This implies to the list that I made any changes.  I did not touch or 
mask any of these packages.  In fact, I asked you to please look at the 
eudev ebuilds to make sure they would work with the new virtual structure.

Furthermore, I am in favor of discussion.  You ask of me precisely what 
I ask of you.  It is a good thing that we discuss these changes together.

>
> I shouldn't even be needing to tell any of this, as common sense should
> prevail, but lately it has been lost,
> so covering basis. Don't take insult of it.
>
> +1 for adding systemd and eudev to metadata.xml
>

Again, let the community judge "common sense".  If eudev is added, then 
that means we get to follow these packages as needed.  It is not my 
intention to obstruct what udev and systemd are doing, but to make sure 
that the eudev ebuilds are not marginalized.

As for "main" providers, there are other distributions that are now 
adopting eudev such as Linux From Scratch [1] and Crux is considering it 
[2].


Ref.

[1] 
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/eudev.html
[2] http://crux.nu/Wiki/TODO31

-- 
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