| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the |
| 5 |
>> udev files with systemd, which is the beginning for the block and the |
| 6 |
>> virtual. So we should first sort that point out, before we even start |
| 7 |
>> to think about an ebuild for an udev virtual. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Do you have a technical or policy reason prohibiting me from maintaining |
| 10 |
> a systemd ebuild following the upstream policies? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It sounds like we have two packages that COULD provide udev - udev and |
| 14 |
systemd. If we decide for both of them to provide udev then we need a |
| 15 |
virtual and they need to block (which should make switching more fun). |
| 16 |
If we decide to keep using the udev package to install udev then we |
| 17 |
don't need a virtual. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'd view this like the split kde ebuilds. Upstream ships a monster |
| 20 |
tarball, and we install it in chunks. Just because upstream ships |
| 21 |
both packages together doesn't require us to install them together. |
| 22 |
From a code-reuse standpoint and ease of transition standpoint it |
| 23 |
makes sense to keep them split, as long as we can have everybody |
| 24 |
continue to use the same udev codebase. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives