1 |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:47:47PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:28:08 -0500 |
3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:37:12PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
6 |
> > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > > > All, |
8 |
> > > > |
9 |
> > > > systemd, like udev, stores directory paths in a way that they can be |
10 |
> > > > queried from pkg-config. However, the systemd.eclass currently does not |
11 |
> > > > use this ability. |
12 |
> > > > |
13 |
> > > > The following patch models the systemd eclass after the udev eclass and |
14 |
> > > > leaves the current defaults in place if there is an issue with |
15 |
> > > > pkg-config. |
16 |
> > > > |
17 |
> > > > Any thoughts? |
18 |
> > > > |
19 |
> > > > William |
20 |
> > > > |
21 |
> > > |
22 |
> > > What problem are you trying to solve here? |
23 |
> > > |
24 |
> > > We already know the values that pkg-config will return, so I fail to |
25 |
> > > see the advantage of calling pkg-config in the eclass. |
26 |
> > > |
27 |
> > > If we were to move the /usr/lib/systemd directory between two versions |
28 |
> > > of systemd, then yes, using pkg-config would be helpful. Until/unless |
29 |
> > > such a change occurs, I just don't see the point. |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > The reason for this is a topic that Samuli and I want to discuss with |
32 |
> > the systemd team, probably on irc, but, basically, since gentoo does not |
33 |
> > have the /usr merge, we think parts of systemd which are in /usr |
34 |
> > should go in /, and this goes along with systemd upstream's recommendations |
35 |
> > as well (look at how the autogen.sh script in the systemd git repo works |
36 |
> > to see what I'm talking about). |
37 |
> > |
38 |
> > This would also allow udev and systemd to share the /lib/systemd |
39 |
> > directory, and we could install compatibility symlinks where necessary |
40 |
> > to not break users' systems. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> No. And I don't have the time to repeat that discussion again. Just no. |
43 |
|
44 |
This was also the extent of your objections when I did bring it up to |
45 |
you informally before. It would really help if you would explain your |
46 |
position. |
47 |
|
48 |
Thanks, |
49 |
|
50 |
William |